The  Handbook  Series 


BEMAN 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/closedshopOObemarich 


THE    HANDBOOK    SERIES 


THE  CLOSED  SHOP 


THE  HANDBOOK  SERIES 


Agricultural  Credit $1 .25 

Americanization,  2 J  ed ]  .80 

Closed  Shop 1.80 

Disarmament 2.2.5 

European  War,  Vol.  II 1 .25 

Immigration 1 .80 

Industrial  Relations 

Employm*t  Managem't...  2.40 

Modern    Industrial 
Movements  2.40 

Problems  of  Labor 2.40 

League  of  Nations,  4th  ed.  1 .50 

Negro  Problem 2.25 

Prison  Reform 1.25 

Short  Ballot 1 .25 

Social  Insurance 2.40 

Socialism  1 .25 

Study  of  Latin  and  Greek  1 .80 

Taxation  2.25 

Vocational  Education 2.25 


THE      HANDBOOK      SERIES 


SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 


THE  CLOSED  SHOP 


Second    Edition 
Revised  and    Enlarged 


COMPILED  BY 


LAMAR  T.  BEMAN,  A.M.,  LL.B, 

Attorney  at  Law,  Cleveland,  Ohio 


NEW  YORK 

THE  H.  W.  WILSON  COMPANY 

LONDON  :  GRAFTON  6c  COMPANY 

1922 


PubliBhed   September    1922 
Printed  in  the  United   Stales   of  America 


EXPLANATORY  NOTE 

The  abnormal  industrial  prosperity  of  the  war  period,  with 
its  high  wages,  high  prices,  ready  employment,  prodigal  spend- 
ing, and  its  rapid  growth  and  domineering  attitude  of  trade 
unionism,  brought  in  its  wane  a  spontaneous  and  nation-wide 
demand  among  employers  for  the  open  shop.  In  many  parts  of 
the  country  employers  associations  and  chambers  of  commerce, 
who  bided  their  time  during  the  period  of  greater  prosperity, 
took  advantage  of  the  increasing  unemployment  in  the  fall  of 
1920  and  the  winter  and  spring  that  followed  to  conduct  active 
campaigns  of  publicity,  issuing  hundreds  of  bulletins,  filling 
various  trade  and  commercial  papers  with  articles,  and  other- 
wise disseminating  propaganda  advocating  the  open  shop  which 
they  called  the  American  plan  for  they  claim  to  be  actuated  by 
motives  of  highest  patriotism.  Labor,  lacking  the  whip  hand 
which  it  held  during  the  war  period,  but  realizing  the  real  pur- 
pose and  the  full  significance  of  these  campaigns,  fought  to  the 
limit  of  its  power  all  attempts  to  crush  out  the  closed  shop.  In 
several  cities  the  central  labor  body  collected  funds,  issued 
pamphlets,  and  furnished  speakers  for  clubs  and  public  meet- 
ings, in  an  effort  to  counteract  the  aggressive  campaign  of  the 
employers.  Thus  was  written  another  chapter  in  the  strug- 
gle of  organized  labor  to  establish  the  union  or  closed  shop 
against  the  determined  resistance  of  the  employers,  and  again 
the  closed  shop  controversy  became  one  of  the  leading  public 
questions. 

This  volume  is  compiled  in  accordance  with  the  general 
plan  of  the  Handbook  series.  In  this  series  the  effort  is  made 
to  present  fully  and  fairly  both  sides  of  one  of  the  great  pub- 
lic questions  of  the  day  in  a  handy,  convenient,  and  concise 
form.  This  volume,  like  the  others  of  the  series,  contains  a 
^-^^^^^batersV  brief  on  each  side  of  the  question,  reprints  of  the 
best  that  has  been  written  on  both  sides,  and  a  select  bibliog- 
raphy that  gives  references  to  a  wider  field  of  the  literature  on 
the  subject. 

Lamar  T.   Beman 
September  i,  1922. 

489539 


CONTENTS 

Briefs  Page 

Affirmative    xi 

Negative    xxiii 

Bibliography 

Bibliographies,  Briefs  and  Debates xxxiii 

General  References    xxxiv 

Affirmative   References    xxxix 

Negative  References  % l 


Introduction 


General  Discussion 

Definitions  of  National  and  Local  Unions  

U.  S.  Industrial  Commission       7 

Relations  of  National  and  Local  Unions  

U.    S.    Industrial   Commission      8 

Causes   of   Disputes    U.    S.   Industrial    Commission     11 

"Principle"  of  the  Open  Shop Gunton     12 

Hoagland,  H.  E.    Closed  Shop  versus  Open  Shop 

American   Economic   Review     21 

Johnson,  Rev.  F.  Ernest.     Open  versus  the  Closed  Shop . . 

Industry     32 

Open  Shop New  York  World    34 

"Open"  Shops  and  Others 

Springfield    (Mass.)    Republican     36 

Opening  Guns  in  the  Open-Shop  War Literary  Digest     38 

Affirmative  Discussion 

Commons,  John  R.    Closed  Shop   Survey  43 

Gompers,   Samuel.    Union  Shop  and  Its  Antithesis 48 

Closed  Shop Bliss.  New  Encyclopedia  of  Social  Reform  45 

Walling,  William  English.    Open  Shop  Means  the  Destruc- 
tion of  the  Unions  Independent  55 


viii  CONTENTS 

Owens,  John  G.    An  Exposition  of  the  Open  Shop 60 

Summarized    Conclusions.      Interchurch    World    Movement 

Report  on  Steel  Strike    70 

Outsider  in  Labor  Disputes New  Republic     ^^ 

Labor  and  the  Open  Shop    Outlook     78 

Statement.    National  Catholic  Welfare  Council 80 

Statement.    Federal  Council  of  the  Churches  of  Christ  in 

America   81 

Gompers,   Samuel.    Union  Shop  and  the   "Open"  Shop 82 

Open  Shop  Crusade New  Republic    86 

J  White,  Henry.    Union  and  the  Open  Shop 

Amef ican  Economic  Association  Proceedings    90 

McNeil,  George  E.     Trade  Union  Ideals 

American  Economic  Association  Proceedings     97 

Morrison,  Frank.  Union  or  Non-Union  Shop,  Which? 

New    Majority  102 

Organized    Labor    Cannot    Submit    to    the    "Open    Shop" 

Menace    National   Labor  Journal  104 

Open  Shop    National  Labor  Journal- 107 

Gompers,  Samuel.     Collective  Bargaining ro8 

Collective  Bargaining    

Butcher-Workman  Advocate    (Omaha,  Neb.)   112 

Brief  Excerpts   1 14 

Negative  Discussion 

Hubbard,    Elbert.     Closed   or    Open    Shop — Which? 119 

Open  Shop  Fight  Rochester    (N.  Y.)   Post  Express  128 

Merritt,  Walter  Gordon.     Closed  Shop   129 

Wyman,    Albert    L.      Why    the    Open    Shop    Benefits    the 

Community    142 

Emery,  James  A.     Supreme  Court  and  the  Open  Shop 

American    Industries  144 

Drew,  Walter.     Closed  Shop  Unionism   149 

Nimmo,  H.   M.    Closed   Shop  or  the  Republic 

Labor    American  162 

O'Leary,  John  W.     Case  for  the  Open  Shop 

Nation's   Business  166 

Bullock,  C.  J.    Closed  Shop  Atlantic  Monthly  167 

Open  Shop Bliss.    New  Encyclopedia  of  Social  Reform  177 

What  the  Open  Shop  Does   Los  Angeles  Times  180 


CONTENTS  ix 

Closed  or  Open  Shop  Iron  Age  182 

Closed  Shop  Is  Opposed  to  Human  Development 

Open   Shop   Review  185 

Closed  Shop — Un-American  Plan     New  Sky  Line  188 

Pfahler,  William  H,    Free  Shops  for  Free  Men 

American  Economic  Association.   Proceedings  188 

Brief    Excerpts 194 


SUPPLEMENTARY   MATERIAL   FOR   SECOND 
EDITION 

General  Discussion 

New  Jersey  State  Chamber  of  Commerce.    Closed  Shop  and 

Open  Shop  Terminology 199 

The  Churches  vs.  the  Open  Shop   212 

Brief  Excerpts    215 

Affirmative  Discussion 

Owens,  John  G.     An  Exposition  of  the  Union  Shop 219 

T.  P.  Whelan.     The  Open  Shop  Crusade  231 

The  Open  Shop  Campaign 232 

National  Catholic  Welfare  Council.     The  Open  Shop  Con- 
troversy    240 

Statement  by  the  Methodist  Federation  for  Social  Service..  244 
Beecher,  Lawrence.     The  Labor  Unions  under  the  So-called 

Open  Shop  446 

Brief  Excerpts    248 

Negative  Discussion 

Sargent,  Noel.    The  Economics  of  the  Open  Shop  Question.  253 

Panama  Canal  Commission.     Open  Shop  Policy  269 

Lewis,  Henry  H.     The  Great  Open  Shop  "Conspiracy"   270 

Cleveland  Chamber  of  Commerce — The  Public  Must  Again 

Pay  276 

Brief  Excerpts   277 


BRIEFS 

Resolved,  That  the  closed  shop  would  benefit  the  American 
people  as  a  whole. 

Affirmative  Brief 
introduction. 

A.  The  working  class  has  slowly  arisen  to  its  present 
position  through  a  series  of  economic  stages  as  a 
result  of  many  centuries  of  struggle  with  the  em- 
ployer class. 

1.  ^Slavery,    in    which    the    working    class    was    the 

property  of- the  employer  class. 

(a)  Slavery  of  white  people  was  quite  common 
in  ancient  times,  even  in  the  supposedly  cul- 
tured  nations   of.  Greece   and   Rome. 

(b)  The  slavery  of  colored  people  prevailed  even 
until  the  memory  of  men  still  living. 

2.  Serfdom,  in  which  men  could  not  leave  the  estate 
^"where  they  lived,  but  passed  with  the  land  when 

it  was  sold. 

3.  The  guild  system. 

4.  The    conditions   during   the    rise    of   the   factory 
system] 

(a)  Long  hours  of  work,  often  fifteen  hours  a 
day. 

(b)  Very  low  wages. 

(c)  Unsanitary  "  and  unsafe  conditions  of  em- 
ployment. 

(d)  Women  and  young  children  working  in 
factories  and  mines. 

(e)  The  working  class  denied  suffrage  and  other 
political   rights. 

(f)  These  conditions  made  it  necessary  for  the 
working  class  to  organize  trade  unions. 

5.  The  conditions  of  two  generations  ago. 


BRIEFS 

(a)  Labor  unions  were  criminal  conspiracies 
prohibited  by  law  in  England. 

(b)  The  working  class  in  America  was  better 
off  than  in  Europe,  because  free  land  in 
this  country  had  a  tendency  to  keep  wages 

_up_to  a  more  comfortable  standard,  since 
any  employee  who  was  dissatisfied  with  his 
job  could  quit  and  take  a  farm  which  the 
government  would  give  him  for  the  asking. 

B.  This  struggle  between  the  employer  class  and  the 
working  class,  which  began  at  the  beginning  of  civil- 
ization, will  continue  until  industrial  democracy  has 
become  an  accomplished  fact. 

1.  It  will  continue  to  be  a  very  slow  process  of  ad- 
vancement for  the  working  class. 

2.  Every  gain  for  the  working  class  must  be  fought 
for  and  forced  from  the  employer  class. 

C.  The  most  important  problem  in  this  world  today  is 

the  betterment  of  the  condition  of  the  working 

class. 

More    than    half    the    people    in    the    world    are 

underfed. 

2.  The  discontent  of  the  working  class,  who  are  no 
longer  able  to  leave  their  work  for  farming,  since 
the  "free  land"  or  government  domain  is  now 
practically  gone,  is  the  most  serious  peril  to  our 
institutions. 

3.  Sch^olars  and  statesmen  have  long  recognized  this 
condition, 
(a)     Thomas  H.  Huxley  wrote  thirty  years  ago 

(Nineteenth  Century.  27:862.  May,  1890) 
"I  do  not  hesitate  to  express  the  opinion, 
that  if  there  is  no  hope  of  a  large  improve- 
ment of  the  condition  of  the  greater  part 
of  the  human  family;  if  it  is  true  that  the 
increase  of  knowledge,  the  winning  of 
greater  domination  over  nature  which  is  its 
consequence,  and  the  wealth  that  follows 
upon  that  dominion,  are  to  make  no  dif- 
ference in  the  extent  and  the  intensity  of 


X 


BRIEFS 


xiu 


want,  with  its  concomitant  physical  and 
moral  degeneration,  among  the  masses  of 
the  people,  I  should  hail  the  advent  of  some 
kindly  comet,  which  would  sweep  the  whole 
affair  away,  as  a  desirable  consummation." 
(b)  Lester  F.  Ward  said,  (Applied  Sociology, 
p.  20)  "I  can  almost  agree  with  Huxley  that 
if  there  is  really  no  remedy,  it  would  be  better 
if  some  'kindly  comet'  would  pass  by  and 
sweep  th'C  entire  phantasmagoria  out  of  ex- 
igence." 

D.    The  closed  shop  means  a  job  on  which  only  members 
of  a  trade  union  are  employed. 

1.  The  proper  name  to  apply  to  this  institution  is 
the  "union  shop." 

2.  The  term  "closed  shop"  has  been  fastened  upon  it 
by  the  enemies  of  organized  labor.  (» 

union  shop  is  necessary  for  the  general  welfare. 
Modern  industrial  conditions  make  it  necessary  for 
the  working  class  to  organize  themselves  into  labor 
unions  in  order  to  safeguard  their  welfare. 

1.  In  the  present  compHcated  and  highly  organized 
system  the  Individuality  of  the  laborer  is  lost, 
and  as  an  individual  he  is  powerless  to  better 
his  condition. 

2.  The    employer    class    is    highly    organized    and 
centralized.  " 
(a)     Labor   in   America   is   only  partially   organ- 
ized, and  its  organization  is  not  highly  cen- 
tralized but  is  very  democratic,  so  that  labor, 
at  best,  is  under  a  great  disadvantage. 

3.  Conditions  of  employment  in  many  of  the  non- 
unionized  industries  are  now  unendurable, 
(a)     Labor  is  often  compelled  to  work  excessive 

and  unreasonable  hours,  so  many  that  it  is 
impossible  for  the  men  to  be  good  Ameri- 
can citizens.     (Survey.  45:783-818.   Mr.  5, '21. 
The  long  day. — A  series  of  articles) 
(x)     The    Commission    of    Inquiry    of    the 


V. 


xiv  BRIEFS 


Interchurch  World  Movement  in  its 
"Report  on  the  Steel  Strike  of  1919" 
says,  (p.  11)  there  were  "191,000  em- 
ployees in  the  U.S.  Steel  Corpora- 
tions manufacturing  plants."  "Ap- 
proximately one  half  the  employees 
were  subjected  to  the  twelve-hour  day. 
Approximately  one  half  of  these  in 
turn  were  subjected  to  the  seven-day 
week."  (p.  12)  "Much  less  than  one 
quarter  had  a  work  day  of  less  than 
ten  hours  (sixty-hour  M^eek)."  "The 
average  week  of  all  employees  was 
68.7  hours."  "The  American  steel 
average  was  over  20  hours  longer 
than  the  British,  which  ran  between 
47  and  48  hours  in  1919."  "The 
hours  were  longer  than  in  1914  or 
1910"  (in  America).  "The  12-hour 
day  made  any  attempt  at  Americani- 
zation or  other  civic  or  individual 
development  for  one-half  of  all  im- 
migrant steel  workers  arithmetically 
impossible."  (see  p.  70-7  of  this  vol- 
ume) 
(y)  Until  the  clothing  industry  was  union- 
ized sweatshop  methods  prevailed 
quite  generally, 
(z)  E,  H.  Gary  has  said,  (Principles  and 
Pohcies  of  the  U.S.  Steel  Corpora- 
tion, p.  16-17)  "The  corporation  in- 
herited the  twelve-hour  day  and  the 
seven-day  week  systems  for  necessary 
continuous  operations. . .  From  an  eco- 
nomic viewpoint,  there  is  much  to  be 
said  in  favor  of  the  existence  of  both, 
particularly  the  twelve-hour  day." 
(b)  Wages  are  unreasonably  low,  often  below 
the  minimum  necessary  for  subsistence. 
(x)  The  commission  of  Inquiry  of  the 
Interchurch  World  Movement  reports 


BRIEFS  XV 

(p.  12)  "The  annual  earnings  of  over 
\pne  third  of  all  productive  iron  and 
steel  workers  were,  and  had  been  for 
years,  below  the  level  set  by  govern- 
ment experts  as  the  minimum  of  sub- 
sistance  standard  for  families  of  five." 
.  "The  annual  earnings  of  ^2.  per  cent 
of   all   workers   were,    and   had   been 
for  years,  below  the  level  set  by  gov- 
ernment experts  as  the  minimum  ot 
comfort   level    for    families   of   five." 
(p.  13)  "Nearly  three  quarters  of  the 
steel  workers  could  not  earn  enough 
for  an  American  Standard  of  living." 
"In   1918  the  corporation's  final  sur- 
plus, after  paying  dividends  of  $96,- 
382,027,  and  setting  aside  $274,277,835 
for    federal    taxes    payable    in    1919, 
was  $466,888,421,  a  sum  large  enough 
to  have  paid  a  second  time  the  total 
wage  and  salary  budget  for  1918  and 
ko    have     left     a     surplus     of     over 
'$14,000,000." 
^c)     In  several  6i  the  non^^unionized   industries 
child  labor  in^  its  worst  form  still  prevails, 
(x)     See   article   entitled   "Employers   poi- 
soning   the    springs     of     childhood." 
(Literary  Digest.  68:36-7.    January  8, 
1921) 
(d)     Preventable  accidents   each  year  kill  thou- 
sands   and    maim    tens    of    thousands    of 
workers, 
(x)     The   1919  StatisticaJ/Abstract  of  the 
United     States    gi/es    the    following 
very  incomplete  -figures  on  industrial 
accidents  for  the  year  1917:   (p-  263) 
In  coal  mines  killed  2,696.    (p.   264) 
In  metal  mines  killed  852.  (p.  266)  In 
smelting    plants     killed     53,     injured 
7,745.   (p.  266)  In  ore  dressing  plants 
killed  47,  injured  2,952.    (p.  267)    In 


BRIEFS 

coke    ovens    killed    76,    injured   6,713. 
(p.     268)      In     quarries     killed     131. 
p.    341)     On    steam    railroads    killed 
10,087,  injured  194,805.    (p.  378)   Dis- 
asters to  vessels  killed  490. 
(y)     The  same  authority  gives  (p.  78)  the 
number  of  deaths  due  to  causes  ac- 
cidental   or    unidentified    in    1918    as 
65,908  in  the  registration  area  which 
included   about   three   fourths  of  the 
population  of  the  United  States, 
(e)     Unsanitary  conditions  still  prevail  in  many 
of  the  non-unionized  industries. 

(f)  In  the  non-unionized  industries^  men  are  fre- 
quently discharged  without  any  noticem  ad- 
vance for  trivial  or  unjust  reasons. 

(x)  The  labor  turnover  in  the  non-union- 
ized industries  is  very  great,  many 
times  greater  than  in  the  union  shops, 
and  it  is  sometimes  more  than  1000 
per  cent. 

(y)  Men  are  very  frequently  discharged 
for  joining  a  union.  (The  Report  on 
the  Steel  Strike  of  1919  by  the  Inter- 
church  World  Movement,  p.  208-9, 
212) 

(z)  Anything  but  the  closed  shop  is  un- 
stable. If  the  closed  shop  should  be 
abolished  and  industry  should  return 
to  the  condition  that  preceded  it,  it 
would  simply  lead  to  the  fight  for  the 
closed  shop  all  over  again. 

(g)  The  spy  system  of  "under-cover"  nien  is  at 
its  worst  in  tEe  non-unionized  industries. 
(Report  on  the  steel  strike  of  1919.  p.  229  and 
PubHc  Opinion  and  the  steel  strike,  p.  1-86) 

(h)  These  conditions  make  the  life  of  the  work- 
ing man  in  a  non-union  shop  only  a  slight 
advance  over  slavery. 


# 


BRIEFS  xvii 

B.  Without  the_jinion._shop,  Jaborjorganizations  could 
accomplish  very  little  for  the  working  class  in  its 
upward  struggle  with  the  employer  class. 

1.  Powerful  combinations  of  employers  would  easily 
crush   labor  unions. 

(a)  The  Lockwood  Committee  investigation  in 
'  New  York  city  has  revealed  the  fact  that 
the  Bethlehem  Steel  Co.  and  its  subsidiary 
companies  refuse  to  sell  fabricated  steel  to 
erectors  employing  union  labor.  (Survey. 
45:494-5.     January  i,   1921) 

2.  Individual  employers  can  and  do  use  non-union 
men  to  destroy  the  effectiveness  of  unions. 

(a)     Employers  will  continually  discharge  union 
men,  especially  those  influential  and  active 
in  the  unions,  and  replace  them  with  non- 
union men. 
(b)     Some  industries  employ  spies  and  detectives 
called  "under-coyer  men,"  who  pretend  to  be 
regular  employees,  join  the  unions  as  regular 
members  and  report  all  the  business  and  the 
plans  of  the  union  to  their  employers,  who 
then  discharge  all  workers  who  are  active  or 
are  leaders  in  union  work,   (see  the  two  re- 
ports of  the  Commission  on  Inquiry  of  the 
Interchurch   World   Movement   on   the   Steel 
Strike    of    1919    and    Sidney   Howard's    The 
Labor  Spy) 

3.  Employers  would  use  cheap  immigrant  labor  to 
break  down  the  unions,  as  has  been  done  in  the 
steel  industry  and  in  the  garment  trades. 

4.  Employers  would  bring  ignorant  and  inefficient 
colored  labor  from  the  south  and  use  it  as  a 
means  of  fighting  the  unions,  as  they  did  from 
1916  to  1918.  (Survey.  45:420-1.  December  18, 
1920) 

C.  The  effectiveness  of  collective  bargaining  and  trade 
agreeirients  is  dependent  upon  the  existence  of  the 
union    shop. 

I.  They  cannot  be  successfully  operated  when  a  shop 
is  not  unionized. 


BRIEFS 

(a)  The  non-union  men  will  not  keep  a  union 
cagreement. . 

(b)  The  union  shop  contract  binds  labor  to  keep 
its  agreements  inviolate. 

2.  The  destruction  of  the  union  shop  would  there- 
fore destroy  collective  bargaining  and  trade  agree- 
ments, leaving  the  working  class  at  the  mercy 
of  the  employer  class. 

(a)     Employers  would  then  arbitrarily  fix  wages, 
hours  of  work,  and  other  conditions  of  em- 
ployment,   as    is    now    done    in    the    steel 
industry. 
3.    The  Bulletin  of  ^ijie  Emploj^g  Printers  Association 
of  America  for  March  25,   1922  admits  that  the 
"American  Plan"  means  the  end  of  collective  bar- 
gaining. 

(a)  At  the  head  of  this  bulletin  directly  under 
the  name  of  \  the  organization  as  a  sort  of 
motto  or  slogan  it  says,  "American  Plan 
Open  Shop." 

(b)  On  p.  2  it  says,  'The  American  Plan  of  in- 
dependent management  and  employment  by 
individual  contract  Is  productive  of  the  most 
harmonious  industrial  relations  and  the  finest 
efficiency  of  operation.  We  are  confident  in  the 
belief  that  no  employer  who  has  ever  given 
this  plan  a  fair  trial  would  ever  go  back  to 
any  form  of  collective  bargaining 

D.     The  union  shop  is  necessary  to  the  life  of  the  labor 
unions. 

1.  The  fight   for  the  open   shop  is  a  thinly  veiled 
attempt  to  destroy  the  labor  unions. 

(a)  The  National  CathoHc  Welfare  Council  has 
declared  that  the  real  purpose  of  the  open 
shop  drive  is  t©  destroy  the  labor  unions. 

(b)  John  Kirby,  Jr.  argued  for  the  open  shop  in 
order  to  kill  the  unions  at  New  Orleans  in 
1905-^    (S.  G.  Smith,  The  Industrial  Conflict. 

^.  79) 

2.  If  union  men  can  be  continually  replaced  by  non- 
union men,  the  union  cannot  long  survive. 


BRIEFS 


XIX 


3. 


p  is  socially  desirable  and  beneficial, 
efited  the  whole  working  class, 
secured   shorter   hours,   giving   the   wage 
earners   opportunity   for  the   rest  and   recreation 
sary  to  make  good  citizens. 

secured  higher  wages,  making  it  possible 
for  the  working  class  to  improve  their  standard 
of  living  and  to  give  their  children  better  educa- 
tional opportunities. 

(a)  Noel  Sargent,  Manager  of  the  Open  Shop 
Department  of  the  National  Association  of 
Manitf<^cturers,  admits  in  his  article,  "The 
Economics  of  the  Open  Shop  Question," 
printed  in  this  volume,  that  the  average  wage 
is  more  than  16  per  cent  higher  in  closed 
shop  towns  than  it  is  in  open  shop  towns. 
It  has  irpproved  the  conditions  of  employment  in 
other  ways. 

(a)  The  sanitary  conditions. 

(b)  The   moral    atmosphere    and   the    spirit   of 
industry. 

It  has  secured  more  steady  and  permanent  em- 
ployment. 

These   things  have   lengthened   the  lives   and   in- 
creased  the   efficiency   of   the   workers. 
It  has  benefited  the  emjployers. 

1.  It  has  secured  for  them  bettsu  and  more  respon- 
sible   workmen. 

2.  It  has  decreased  strikes  and  labor  troubles. 

3.  It  has  very  greatly  reduced  labor  turnover,  and 
thus  made  a  great  saving  to  industry. 

4.  Union  rules  in  closed  shops  are  reasonable  and 
practicable. 

5      Higher  wages  mean  a  greater  demand  for  manu- 
factured  products,   a   better   market   for   the   em- 
ployer. 
It  has  benefited  the  general  public. 
I.     It  has  elevated  the  general  average  of  mankind, 
(a)     The  workingman  becomes  a  better  citizen, 
(b)     Employers    become    more    reasonable    and 
humane. 


5- 


XX 


BRIEFS 


2.  It  tends  to  secure  a  steady  market  and  normal 
prices. 

3.  It  has  been  a  great   forward   step  toward  indus- 

trial democracy. 

4.  Lengthening  the  lives  and  increasing  the  efficiency 

of  the  workers  redounds  to  the  benefit  of  society. 

(a)  They  prolong  the  period  of  productivity. 

(b)  They  increase  the  wealth  of  society. 

D.  It  has  not  been  harmful  to  the  non-union  working- 
i^n,  but  on  the  contrary  has  been  very  beneficial 
to  them. 

1.  The  labor  unions  in  this  country  are  open  unions, 
so  that  the  non-union  men  can  join  them  if  they 
wantvto  do  so. 

2.  The  beneficial  results  for  which  the  unions  have 
to  struggle,— the  higher  wages,  shorter  hours, 
and  improved  conditions  of  employment,  are 
shared  and  enjoyed  by  the  non-union  men. 

3.  The  open  shop  does  not  secure  to  the  non-union 
men  any  greater  liberty,  nor  do  they  get  as  high 
pay  or  as  favorable  conditions  of  employment 
under  open  shop  conditions. 

4.  The  often  repeated  arguments  of  the  spokesmen 

of  big  employers,  that  they  favor  the  open  shop 
because  it  safeguards  the  rights,  the  liberty,  and 
the  interests  of  the  non-union  workers,  are  too 
obviously  insincere  for  serious  consideration. 

ion  shop  is  a  practicable  policy-f. 
has  been  a  general  success  wherever  tried. 
In  all  kinds  of  industries. 
In  all  parts  of  the  country. 
3.     For  many  years  of  trial. 

B.  It  is  the  natural  and  logical  development  of  present 
industrial  conditions. 

I.  It  is  the  necessary  and  inevitable  result  of  the 
highly  centralized  organization  of  the  employer 
class. 

C.  It  is  a  principle  not  peculiar  to  industrial  work. 

I.  The  legal  profession  in  most  states  is  conducted 
on  .t<h«"''«M|MHBfep   principle,   admission   to   the 


BRIEFS  xxi 

bar  being  as  a  result  of  an  examination  conducted 
by  lawyers. 
2.     The   same   conditions   prevail    in    most   states   as 
regards  the  other  professions. 
D.    The  union  shop  is  endorsed  and  approved  by  the  best 
thought  of  our  time. 

1.  Nobody  is  being  misled  by  the  great  number  of 
pamphlets,  leaflets,  and  articles  that  are  being 
printed  and  circulated,  all  of  which  are  a  part  of 
the  organized  propaganda  carried  on  by  a  very 
small  part  of  the  American  people  who  believe 
it  to  be  to  their  financial  and  selfish  interest  to 
destroy  the  labor  unions  and  to  secure  and  main- 
tain long  hours  of  labor  and  low  wages, 

(a)  ""^QThe  Methodist  Federation  for  Social  Service 

sa^,  "The  'personal  liberty'  and  'freedom 
of  contract'  for  which  the  employing  group 
stands,  leaves  the  entire  control  of  hiring 
and  firing,  .  the  management,  amount  and 
quality  of  pr64uct,  and  the  system  of  pay  in 
the  hands  of  the  employer.  An  individual, 
even  though  a  union  man,  is  powerless  to 
bargain  over  these  matters." 

(b)  The  National  Catholic  \yelf are  Council  says, 
"Notwithstanding  its  sprinkling  of  profes- 
sional men,  the  average  local  chamber  of 
commerce  represents  the  viewpoint  of  the 
employing  class  exclusively,  whenever  it 
makes  a  pronouncement  concerning  th^  re- 
lations between  capital  and  labor.  ^ 

2.  The  sentiment  of  the  disinterested  and     unselfish 

people  is    very  strongly    against    the    open    shop 

drive. 

(a)  The  National  Catholic  Welfare  Council  has 
said,  "The  'open  shop'  drive  masks  under 
such  names  as  'The  American  Plan'  and 
hides  behind  the  pretense  of  American  free- 
dom. Yet  its  real  purpose  is  to  destroy  all 
effective  labor  unions,  and  thus  subject  the 
working  people  to  the  complete  domination  of 
the  employers.  Should  it  succeed  in  the  mea- 
sure that  its  proponents  hope,  it  will  thrust 


xxii  BRIEFS 


far  into  the  ranks  of  the  underpaid  the  body 
of  American  working  people." 

(b)  The  Federal  Council  of  the  Churches  of 
Christ  in  America  has  declared,  "The  rela- 
tions between  employers  and  workers 
throughout  the  United  States  are  seriously 
affected  at  this  moment  by  a  campaign  which 
is  being  conducted  for  the  'open  shop' 
policy — the  so-called  'American  Plan'  of  em- 
ployment. These  terms  are  now  being  fre- 
quently used  to  designate  estabhshments  that 
are  definitely  anti-union.  .  .  The  present 
'open  shop'  campaign  is  inspired  in  many 
quartets  by  this  antagonism  to  union  labor. 
Many  disinterested  persons  are  convinced 
that  an  attempt  is  being  made  to  destroy  the 
organized  labor  movement.  Any  such  at- 
tempt must  be  viewed  with  apprehension  by 
fair-minded  people." 

(c)  The  Methodist  Federation  for  Social  Service 
has  declared,  "In  the  light  of  what  has  hap- 
pened in  the  steel  industry,  where  the  so- 
called  American  principle  of  employment  has 
been  fully  demonstrated  over  a  period  of 
years,  it  seems  quite  clear  to  us  that  the 
success  of  the  present  'open  shop'  campaign 
would  mean  the  establishment  of  a  closed 
shop — closed  against  uuion  labor,  and  would 
return  large  numbers  of  wage  earners  to  the 
living  standards  of  sweated  industries.  In 
the  light  of  what  is  now  happening  in  cer- 
tain local  mining  districts  in  West  Virginia, 
we  regard  it  as  certain  that  the  consuma- 
tion  of  this  'open  shop'  campaign  will  per- 
p<;tuate  and  increase  chaos,  anarchy,  and  war- 
fare in  our  industrial  life,  will  intolerably 
delay  the  development  of  constitutional 
democracy  in  industry,  which  the  churches 
have  declared  to  be  the  Christian  method 
of   industrial   control." 

(d)  A  similar  stand  has  been  taken  by  the  Com- 
mission    of     Inquiry     of     the     Interchurch 


BRIEFS  xxiii 

World    Movement,    the    Central    Conference 

of    American    Rabbis,   and   by   many   church 

and    religious    papers    and    magazines. 

The  closed  union  shop  is  endorsed  and  supported 

as  the  only  alternative  by  most  of  the  keen  and 

disinterested  thought  of  the  day. 

(a)  Professor  John  R.  Commons  of  the  Univer- 
sity of  Wisconsin. 

(b)  Clarence  Darrow,  the  well  known  Chicago 
attorney. 

(c)  Senator  Robert  M.  LaFollette. 

(d)  Louis  F.  Post,  formerly  Assistant  Secretary 
of  Labor. 

(e)  Professor  George  G.  Groat  says,  (The  Study 
of  Organized  Labor  in  America,  p.  285) 
"Professor  Ross  has  expressed  the  relation 
vividly  when  he  said,  'It  seems  to  me  so  im- 
portant that  the  sellers  of  labor  should 
equalize  themselves  in  bargaining  power  with 
the  buyers  of  labor  and  therewith  com- 
mand for  their  labor  its  true  market  worth, 
that  if  you  can  show  me  that  the  closed 
shop  is  essential  to  such  a  condition,  I  ap- 
prove of  the  closed  shop.' " 


Negative  Brief 
Introduction. 

A.  The  closed  shop  means  that  an  agreement  has  been 
entered  into  by  an  employer  and  his  employees  to 
exclude  all  non-union  men  from  that"  shop  or  job. 

B.  This  is  a  comparatively  new  plan ;  one  not  yet 
generally  accepte.d~aT"a?rtm4nfrf4ua1  rhangp^ 

C.  The  negative  does  not  oppose  trade  unions  in  their 
rightful  sphere,  but  believes  that  when  trade  unions 
compel   an   employer  to   exclude   all   non-union   men 

f  from  any  shop  or  job,  that  they  are   going  beyond 

their  rightful  sphere  of  activity,  infringing  the  rights 
of  others,  and  interfering  with  the  social  welfare. 
I.     The  methods  employed  by  trade  unions  to  secure  closed 
shop  agreements  cannot  be  justified. 


dv  BRIEFS 

A,  The  methods  which  they  employ  are: 

1.  Threats,  intimidation,  duress.  Employers  have 
often  entered  into  contracts  to  deliver  goods  by  a 
specified  time,  or  have  established  a  business  re- 
quiring continuous  service,  so  that  even  a  slight 
interruption  would  be  disastrous  to  them,  and 
are  therefore  at  the  mercy  of  the  unions  which 
always  take  advantage  of  such  conditions. 

2.  Strikes,  which  result  in: 

(a)  Financial  loss  and  great  inconvenience  to: 
(x)     The  employer. 

(y)     All  the  employees, 
(z)     The  general  public. 

(b)  Disorder  and  breach  of  the  peace,  by: 
(x)     Violence,  slugging  and  murder, 
(y)     Mob  rule  and  disorder. 

(z)     Dynamiting   and   other   distruction    of 
property. 

3.  Boycotts. 

(a)  Case   of   Buck's   Stove  and   Range   Co.,   of 
St.  Louis. 

(b)  The  Danbury  Hatters  case. 

(c)  Case  of  the  Duplex  Printing  Press  Co, 

4.  Stoppages  and  striking  on  the  job. 

5.  Misuse  and  abuse  of  the  union  label. 

6.  Actual  civil  war,  as  in  the  West  Virginia  and 
Illinois  coal  mines  recently  and  in  the  case  of  the 
Coh?radQ  mines  a  few  years  ago. 

B.  These  methods  are  injurious  to  industry  and  to  the 
people  as  a  whole. 

1.  They  interfere  with  service,  int-errupt  production. 

2.  They  make  investments  less  secure. 

3.  They  lower  the  standard  of  morality  and  the 
respect   for  the  law. 

II.     The  closed  shop  is  an  un-American  institution. 

A.     The  American  industrial   system  originated  and  has 
developed  on  the  open  shop  basis. 
I.    The  closed  shop  is  a  comparatively  new  system. 
2: — Ninety  per  cent   of   our  industrial   establishments 
are  now  conducted  on  the  open  shop  basis. 


BRIEFS  XXV 

B.  The  closed  shop  is  illegal,  or  is  generally  brought 
about  by  the  use  of  means  and  methods  that  are 
illegal. 

1.  The  closed  shop  infringes  the  right  of  free 
contract. 

2.  The  closed  shop  is  an  organization  in  restraint  of 
trade. 

(a)  So  held  by  the  U.S.  Supreme  court  in  the 
case  of  Lowe  vs.  Lawlor.  (Bulletin.  U.S. 
Bureau  of  Labor.     No.  75.     p.  622) 

(b)  So  held  by  the  U.S.  Circuit  court  for  the 
northern  district  of  California  in  the  case 
of  Loewe  vs.  State  Federation  of  Labor. 
(Bulletin.  U.S.  Bureau  of  Labor.  Nov- 
ember 19,  '05,  p.  1067.  Also  139  Fed. 
R.  71) 

3.  Procuring  the  discharge  of  anyone  on  no  sub- 
stantial evidence  except  that  he  does  not  belong 
to  a  union  is  unlawful. 

(a)  Lucke  vs.  Clothing  Cutters  and  Trimmers 
Assembly.      'J^    Md.    396. 

(b)  Perkins  vs.   Pendleton.     90  Me.   126. 

(c)  Erdemann  vs.  Mitchell.    207  Pa.  79. 

4     The  closed  shop  tends  to  create  a  labor  monopoly, 
(a)     So   held   in    Massachusetts    in   the   case   of 
Berry  vs.  Donavan. 

5.  The  closed  shop  is  a  criminal  conspiracy. 

(a)  So  held  by  the  appellate  court  of  Cook 
County,  Illinois,  in  the  case  of  Cristensen 
vs.  Kellogg  Switchboard  Co. 

6.  In  the  case  of  the  Duplex  Printing  Press  Co.  vs. 
Deering  and  others  the  U.S.  Supreme  Court  held 
on  Jan.  3,  1921,  that  the  secondary  boycott  to 
enforce   the  closed  shop  is  unlawful. 

C.  The  closed  shop  interferes  with  individual  liberty, 
which  is  one  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  the 
American  industrial  system. 

1.  Of  the  employer,  to  employ  the  men  he  thinks 
best  qualified  to  do  the  work  he  wants  done. 

2.  Of  the  employee,  to  work  where  he  wants  to. 


XXVI  BRIEFS 

D.     The  closed  shop  restricts  a  man's  right  to  the  use  of 
his  own  property. 

III.     The  closed  shop  is  undesirable  and  detrimental  to  society. 
A.     To  the  non-union  men  who  constitute  the  majority 
of  the  wage  earners  in  this  country. 

1.  The  non-union  men  are  deprived  of  legal  rights 
and  personal  liberty. 

(a)  Their  right  to  free  contract  would  be 
greatly  impaired. 

(b)  Their  rights  to  work  when  and  where  they 
wish  will  be  destroyed. 

2.  The  non-union  men  are  thrown  upon  the  mercy 
of  the  union. 

(a)  Certain  classes,  e.g.,  colored  men  in  many 
places,  in  others  those  who  have  served  in 
the  state  militia  or  as  strike  breakers,  are 
excluded  from  the  union  or  burdened  with 
heavy  fines. 

(b)  Many  workmen,  for  religious  or  other  rea- 
sons,  refuse  to  join  the  union. 

(x)  In  some  unions,  a  member  is  re- 
quired to  take  an  oath  of  obligation 
to  support  the  union  in  preference  to 
to  any  other  institution,  even  the 
government. 

3.  If  not  received  into  the  union,  and  many  would 
be  in  this  position,  the  non-union  men  would  often 
be  thrown  out  of  work  and  find  themselves  un- 
able to  get  work  in  the  same  trade. 

^;-^  B.     To  the  union  men  themselves. 

1.  The  standard  of  efficiency  of  the  men  would  be 
lowered. 

(a)     A  union  card  would  often  be  sufficient  to  ob- 
tain   a   position,    and    efficiency   would   be    a 
minor   consideration, 
(b)     The  men  would  be  less  responsible  for  the 
quality  of  their  work,  because  they  would 
know  an  employer  would  be  restrained  from 
discharging  them   for  inefficiency. 

2.  All  union  men  are  put  upon  the  same  plane,  and 
thus  personal  ambition  is  destroyed. 


BRIEFS  xxvii 

(a)     Uniop  regulations  fix  the  hours  and  wages 

and  /usually   restrict   production    so   that   a 

man;  even  if  he  so  desires,  cannot  raise  his 

earning  capacity  above  the  fixed  maximum 

limit.    Thi^-was-the  cause  of  the  long  and 

bitter  hoycott  of  Buck's  Stove  and  Range 

Company    of    St.    Louis. 

3.     The  unions  w^ould  not  use  wisely  the  power  given 

them,    for   they   have   already   shown   themselves 

unable  to  use  wisely  the  power  and  the  privileges 

they  have. 

(a)     Their  leaders  are  occasionaly  incompetent, 
or  dishonest  men.     f^ 
j^iXh)     They  have  often   made   excessive   and  un- 
reasonable   demands,    and    have    frequently 
struck  for  trivial  reasons. 

. 4.     The   closed   shop   would    force   upon    the   unions 

unsympathizing   and    disinterested   members,    and 
thus  the  usefulness  of  the  union  would  be  im- 
paired,  if   not   destroyed. 
C.     The  closed   shop  would  be  particularly  injurious   to 
the  employer. 

I.     He    would    be    deprived    of    his    right    of    free 
contract. 

I 2.     He  would  lose  control  of  his  shop,  which  is  his 

property,  for  the  unions  could  dictate  terms  and 
conditions   to  him. 

(a)  The  rate  of  wages  he  must  pay. 

(b)  The  basis  of  the  wage  system  he  uses. 

(c)  The  class  of  men  he  employs. 

•  (d)     The  number  of  men  he  must  employ. 

(e)  The  hours  of  work. 

(f)  The  machinery  he  is  to  buy. 

3.  Ujnder  the  closed  shop  the  output  of  the  em- 
ployer is  restricted.  Unions  employ  every  pos- 
sible means  to  restrict  the  employers'  output,  for 
they  act  on  the  fallacious  idea  that  if  every  man/' 
does  less  there  will  be  more  work  for  other  rpen 
to  do,  and  hence  the  rate  of  wages  will  increase. 
But  all  economists  agr^that  anything  that  tends 
to  decrease  the  social  product  tends  to  decrease 
the  value  of  wages. 


xxviii  BRIEFS 

(a)  T|ie  by-laws  of  many  unions  prove  this. 

(b)  Tl\e  commott-pfo vision  of  union  shop  rules 
regardmg  piece  work. 

4.  The  employer  would  lose  control  of  the  quality 
of  his  goods. 

(a)  He  would  be  controlled  by  union  rules. 

(b)  He  will  often  have  to  accept  the  work  of 
union  men  even  where  it  is  unsatisfactory 
to  him. 

5.  Workmen  have  less  loyalty  for  employers. 

(a)  Strikes   are   more   frequent. 

(b)  Striking  on  the  job  and  stoppages  are  often 
resorted   to. 

(c)  Constant    friction    has   been   the    result. 

D.  The  closed  shop  is  injurious  and  detrimental  to  the 
general  public  and  it  is  therefore  highly  undesirable. 
I.  The  closed  shop  almost  invariably  results  in  re- 
stricted and  reduced  output,  which  means  an  in- 
creased cost  of  production,  and  this  would  of 
necessity  increase  the  present  high  prices,  for 
cost  to  consumer  would  be  raised  by 

(a)  Increased  wages  demanded  in  closed  shops. 

(b)  Cost  of  strikes  necessary  to  secure  closed 
shop. 

(c)  Graft  of  union  officials,  as  shown  by  the 
Lockwood  Committee  in  New  York  City  in 
1920  and  1921. 

^,  2.  The  closed  shop  committee  restricts  the  number 
of  apprentices.  Boys  and  young  men  are  there- 
fore not  free  to  pursue  what  calling  or  trade  they 
wish.  This  is  a  denial  of  equal  opportunity  to 
all. 

3.  The  closed  shop  would  widen  the  gulf  between 
capital   and   labor. 

(a)  Each  would  necessarily  think  of  the  other 
as  his  natural   enemy. 

(b)  There  would  be  constant  friction  about 
the  control  of  the  shop. 

4.  When  the  employer  is  unable  to  control  his  shop 
capital  will  cease  to  be  invested  in  that  trade, 
and  it  would  begin  to  flow  out  of  the  country  to 
seek  foreign  investment. 


BRIEFS  xxix 

IV.     The  closed  shop  is  impracticable. 

A.  Itv  is  an  impossible  condition  for  all  industries. 

1.  ^f  farmers  worked  a  44-hour  week,  there  would 

DIE  starvation  in,,«tfr  cities,  f6£jt__:ffiQiild_restriet- 
thes^agricukufal  product  below  the  actual  needs 
of  the  people. 

2.  Social  income  cannot  exceed  the  total  output. 

B.  If  used   in   some   industries,   the  workers  in   others, 
must  make  up  for  it 

I.  Higher  wages  or  shorter  hours  must  bfi^JoHewed 
byi  higher  prices,  conipjelling  the^erieral  public  to 
beai^-the  burden.      '^ 

C.  It  gives  too  much  power  to  the  unions. 

1.  UriioTr5~-ai:g_not   responsible   to   anybody. 

(a)  They  are  not  incorporaTed^Tnd  cannot  be 
reached  through  the  courts  as  employers 
can. 

2.  It  would  give  absolute  control  of  the  shop-iutp^ 
the  hands  of  the  union. 

(a)     The  men  are  usually  ignorant  and  untrained 

for   such   responsible   work.      (Publications 

American  Economic  Association  February, 

3.  They  are  sometimes  very  corrupt  and  use  their 
power  for  doing  harm. 

(a)  Sometimes"  to  ruin  certain  employers. 

(b)  jSornptimes  to  extort  bribes  frora.-efl*pt5yers. 

D.  Experience^hows  that  the  open  shop  is  best. 

1.  It  has  existed  since  the  introduction  of  the  fac- 
tory system  and  is  now  the  condition  in  more 
than  itamSt&f^n^  of  the  shops  and  factories. 

(a)  Unions  are  now  about  150  years  old  while 
the  agitation  for  the  closed  shop  is  only 
about  30  years  old. 

2.  The  open  shop  is  working  almost  universally  in 
England  and  is  working  well. 

(a)  It  may  be  said  that  conditions  are  different. 
True,  we  advocate  adopting  their  conditions 
in  this   respect. 

3.  Every  evil  that  has  arisen  in  the  past  has  been 
cured  by   some   remedial   statute. 


.i&«. 


BRIEFS 

E.  Every  evil  that  now  exists  or  may  hereafter  exist 
in  the  open  shop  system  can  be  remedied  by  some  less 
socialistic   measure.  . 

1.  By  commissions  estcdblished  by  law,  such  as 

(a)  The  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 

(b)  The  Anthracite  Coal  Strike  Commission. 

(c)  The  Railroad  Labor  Board. 

(d)  Industrial  Courts  or  Industrial  Commissions 
established  by  the  different   states. 

2.  By  public  opinion,  which  is  now  strongly  against 
the  closed  shop. 

F."^  The  open,  shop  is  supported  ||^  the  best  thought  of  our 
,^'  time.       ^       — -  -= 

1.  It  has  been  endorsed  and  approved  by  our  ablest 
scholars  and  statesmen. 

(a)  President  Theodore  Roosevelt.  (See  Message 
to  Congress  of  December  6,  1904,  p.  4; 
Bishop,  J.  B.,  Theodore  Roosevelt  and  his 
time.  Vol.  i.  p.  249-51 ;  and  Outlook.  74:771-2, 
867-8,   1009-10;   75:193,   333-4) 

(b)  Charles  W.  Eliot,  former  president  of  Har- 
vard University.  (Harper's  Monthly.  110:529) 

(c)  Secretary  Herbert  Hoover.  (Iron  Trade  Re- 
view. 66:1487.  May  20,  1920) 

(d)  Chief  Justice  William  H.  Taft.  (Open  Shop 
Encyclopedia,  p.  217) 

(e)  Newton  D.  Baker,  former  Secretary  of  War 
and  now  President  of  the  Cleveland  Chamber 
of  Commerce,  says,  "The  closed  union  shop 
represents  an  un-American  and  an  undemo- 
cratic principle." 

2.  The  open  shop  is  accepted  and  utilized  by  prefer- 
^ence   as   a  working   condition   by  the   four   great 

railway  brotherhoods. 

(a)  The  brotherhood  of  locomotive  engineers. 

(b)  The  brotherhood  of  locomotive  firemen  and 
enginemen. 

(c)  The  brotherhood  of  railway  trainmen. 

(d)  The   order   of    railway   conductors. 
The   open   shop   has   been   strongly   endorsed   and 

recommended  by-ihc  leading  commissions  and  or- 
ganizations. 


BRIEFS  xxxi 

(a)  The  Commission  of  Inquiry  of  the  Inter- 
church  World  Movement  included  in  its  "rec- 
ommendations" (Report  on  the  Steel  Strike 
of  1919,  p.  249)  "That  organized  labor  reor- 
ganize unions  with  a  view  of  sharing  in  re- 
sponsibility for  production  and  in  control  of 
production  processes;  to  this  end,  finding  a 
substitute  for  the  closed  shop  wherever  it  is 
a  union  practice." 

(b)  The  Special  Panama  Canal  Commission  in 
1921  reported  emphatically  in  favor  of  the 
open  shop. 

(c)  The  Anthracite  Coal  Strike  Commission  of 
1902  said;  "No  person  shall  be  refused  em- 
ployment, or  in  any  way  discriminated 
against,  on  account  of  membership  or  non- 
membership  in  any  labor  organization,  and 
there  shall  be  no  discrimination  against,  or 
interference  with  any  employee  who  is  not  a 
member  of  a  labor  organization  by  members 
of   such  organization." 

(d)  The  Chamber  of  Commerce  of  the  United 
States,  and  almost  all  the  state  and  local 
chambers  have  strongly  endorsed  the  open 
shop. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

An  asterisk  (*)  preceding  a  reference  indicates  that  the  entire  article 
or  a  part  of  it  has  been  reprinted  in  this  volume.  A  dagger  (t)  is  used 
to   indicate  a  few  of  the  other  best  references. 

Bibliographies,  Briefs,  and  Debates 

Furuseth,  Andrew  and  Merritt.   Walter,   G.   The   open   shop:    a 

debate.  47p.  League  for  Industrial  Rights.  1921. 
Gravel.  4:17-19.   October,    1921.   Outline   of    debate.. 
fHarvard    Debating    Council.    Open    shop    debate.    35p.    Mimeo- 
graphed. 1921. 
McMullin,   Jennie  W.    The   closed   union   shop,   arguments   for 
and  against.    Wisconsin  Legislative   Reference  Library,  1920. 
To    be    obtained    from    Public    Affairs    Information    Service,    958    Uni- 
versity Ave.,  New  York  City. 

Meyer,  H.  H.  B.    List  of  references  on  the  open  shop.    Library 

of  Congress.    1920.    Multigraphed. 
Nichols,    Egbert    R.     Intercollegiate    debates.     Hinds,    Noble    & 

Eldredge.     1912. 

Vol.  I.  p.  547-600.  "Resolved,  That  the  movement  of  organized  labor 
for  the  closed  shop  should  receive  the  support  of  the  American  people." 
Speeches   and  bibliography.     Illinois  Wesleyan   debate. 

Nichols,    Egbert    R.     Intercollegiate    debates.     Hinds,    Noble    & 

Eldredge.     1913. 

Vol.    3-     P-    185-238.     Reprint.     Same   as   volume   2. 
Pearson,   Paul   M.    Intercollegiate    debates.     Hinds,     Noble     & 

Eldredge.    1909. 

Vol.  I.  p.  261-90.  "Resolved,  That  in  labor  disputes  workmen  are 
justified  in  demanding  as  the  conditions  of  settlement  that  their  em- 
ployers agree  to  employ  only  members  of  trade  unions."  Chicago-North- 
western   debate.      Speeches    and    bibliography. 

fPhelps,     Edith    M.     University    debaters'    annual.     Vol.    VI. 
1919-1920.    H.  W.  Wilson  Co.    1920. 

Chap.  VI.  p.  247-92.  "Resolved,  That  the  movement  of  organized 
labor  for  the  closed  shop  should  receive  the  support  of  public  opinion." 
Briefs,   speeches,   and  bibliography. 

fPhelps,  Edith  M.  University  debaters'  annual.  Vol.  VII.  1920- 
1921.  H.  W.  Wilson  Co.  1921. 

p.  I-S3.  Resolved,  That  employers  should  abandon  the  principle  of 
the  open  shop.  The  Harvard-Princeton  debate  of  192 1.  Briefs,  bibliog- 
raphy,  and   speeches. 


+ 


xxxiv  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Robbins,    E.    Clyde.   Open   versus   closed   shop.   H.    W.    Wilson 
Co.  1911. 

Resolved,  That  the  movement  of  organized  labor  for  the  closed  shop 
should  receive  the  support  of  public  opinion.  Briefs,  bibliography,  and 
selected  articles. 

Shurter,   Edwin  D.,  and  Taylor,  Carl  C.     Both    sides    of    one 
hundred   public   questions   briefly   debated.    Hinds,    Noble   & 
Eldredge.    1913. 
p.  21 1- 1 3.     "Resolved,  That  the  principle  of  the  closed  shop  should  be 

generally   adopted   in   the   United   States,"     Syllabi   and   Bibliography. 

Social    Service   Bulletin.    2:4.    January,    1921.    References. 

Speaker.    2:398-400.    September,   1907. 

"Resolved,  That  the  general  welfare  of  the  American  people  demands 
the  open  shop  principle  in  our  industries."  University  of  Iowa — Uni- 
versity  of   South   Dakota   debate.      Syllabi. 

Thomas,  Ralph  W.    Manual    of    debate.    American    Book    Co. 

1910. 

p.  194-7.  "Resolved,  That  employers  of  labor  are  justified  in  insisting 
on  the  open  shop."     Brief  and  references. 

University  of  Iowa.    Fourth  annual  intercollegiate  debate.    The 

Forensic  League.  44P.   191 1. 

"Resolved,  That  the  movement  of  organized  labor  for  the  closed 
shop  should  receive  the  support  of  public  opinion."  Briefs,  speeches, 
and  bibliography. 

University  of  Texas.  Bulletin,  No.   1859.  Open  shop  or  closed 
shop.  Bibliography,  briefs,  and  reprints.  Compiled  by  Charles 
_,__A  Gulick,  Jr.    6op.    1920, 

University  of   Wisconsin.    Extension   Division.    Department  of 
,  Debating  and   Public   Discussion.    Bulletin  no.  395,   general 
series  no.  242.  Closed  versus  open  shop.  1910. 
"Resolved,  That  the  movement  of  organized  labor  for  the  closed  shop 
should    receive  the  support  of  public  opinion."    Syllabi  and  references. 

fVanderblit  University.        Typewritten  briefs.        8+i7p.        Ad- 
dress  Prof.  A.   M.   Harris. 
"Resolved,  That  the  closed  shop  principle  in  American  industry  is  for 

the  best  interest  of  the  people  of  the  United  States."    Briefs  and  references. 

tZimand,    Savel.   The   open   shop   drive.   Who   is   behind   it   and 
where  is  it  going?  Bureau  of  Industrial  Research.   1921. 
p.    50-4.     What  to   read. 

General  References 

Books  and  Pamphlets 

Adams,   Thomas  S.  and  Sumner,  Helen  L.      Labor     problems. 
~-    Macmillan  &  Co.    1920. 

p.  246,  252-5.     The  closed  shop. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


^' 


merican  Labor  Year  Book  for   1916.  Rand  School  of  Social 
|/*  Science.  1916. 

p.    70.     Court   decisions   in    1915:    closed  shop   agreements. 

..^^^Bliss,   W.   D.   p.    New   encyclopedia  of   social  reform.     Funk 

"       ^      &  Wagnalls,   1908. 

p.   851-4.     The   open  or  closed   shop.     Gustavus  A.   Weber. 

Bloomfield,  Daniel.    Problems  of  labor.     H.     W.     Wilson     Co. 

1920. 

tuKA/'-K     P*   ^38-40,   243-55.   357-     The   open   shop. 
^  J(  V     185-267.   Trade  unionism. 

Brooks,  John  G.  Labor's  challenge  to  the  social  order.  Macmillan. 

r-^^     1920. 

p.    134.      Labor's  fight  for  the  closed  shop. 

Carlton,  Frank  T.  History  and  problems  of  organized  labor. 
D.  C.  Heath  &  Co.    191 1. 

^vJ\aA      P'    ^2^"^'     "^^^  closed  shop. 

Chenery,  William  L.  Industry  and  human  welfare.   Macmillan. 

jjJ^Commons,  John  R.  History  of  labor  in  the  United  States.  Mac- 

")■ millan.  1918. 

Vol.    I.  p.   130-2.      Closed    shop. 

Vol.   I.  p.  412.      Commonwealth    vs.    Hunt. 

Commons,    John     R.    Labor    and    administration.     Macmillan. 

Jl>^    1913. 
-jj^      I     Chap.   7.     p.  85-105.     The   union  shop. 

jj^Commons,  John  R.    Trade  unionism  and  labor  problems.    Ginn 
YjT  &  Co.    1905. 

^JJ     tGroat,   George  G.  An  introduction  to  the  study  of  organized 
'  labor  in  America.    Macmillan  &  Co.    1916. 

p.  267-300.      The  closed  shop. 
Howard,  Sidney.  The  labor  spy:  a  survey  of  industrial  espionage. 

Republic  Pub.  Co.  72p.   1921. 
Hoxie,    Robert   F.    Trade   unionism   in   the   United    States.    Ap- 
pleton.   1919. 

Laughlin,  J.  Laurence.  Industrial  America.  Scribners.  1906. 
p.  67-99.      The   labor   problem   in    the    United    States. 

*Lloyd,  Ernest  F.  The  closed  union  shop  versus  the  open  shop; 
their  social  and  economic  value  compared.  National  Indus- 
trial Conference  Board.    1920. 

-^  Special    report  no.    11.     27P. 

jVs^^.,^st,  Louis  F.  The  open  and  the  closed  shop,  about  1910. 

Strong,  Josiah.     Social  progress.     1905. 
p.   178-81.     The  open  or  closed  shop. 


^ 


V  Amp 


xxxvi  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Taussig,  F.  W.  Principles  of  economics.  Macmillan.  191 1. 

Vol.    2.   p.   269-79. 
*U.  S.  Commission  on  Industrial  Relations.    1916. 

Vol.    I.    p.    240-2.      Employers'    objections    to    organized    labor;    closed 
shop. 

Vol.    I.  p.  265.     Adoption  of  term  "union  shop"  and  "non-union  shop" 
in  lieu  of  "open  shop"   and  "closed  shop." 

Vol.   5.  p.  4771-4909.     Open  and  closed  shop  controversy  in   Stockton, 
Cal. 

Vol.   6.   p.    5485-5999'     The   open   and  closed  shop   controversy   in   Los 
Angeles. 

U.  S.  Commissioner  of  Labor.    Eleventh  special  report,  1904. 
p.    23-4,  274-5.     Closed  and  open  shop. 

*U.    S.    Industrial    Commission.    I7:XV-XVI.    1901.    Definitions 
of  national   and  local  unions. 

*U.    S.     Industrial    Commission.     I7:XIX-XX.     1901.     Relations 
of  national   and   local    unions. 

*U.  S.  Industrial  Commission.  17:655.  1901.  Causes  of  disputes. 

Webb,   Sidney  and  Beatrice.    History  of  trade  unions.    Long- 
mans, Green  &  Co.    1920. 

Webb,   Sidney   and   Beatrice.   Industrial  democracy.  Longmans, 
Green  and  Co.   1902. 

Weyforth,  William  O.  The  organizability  of  labor.  Johns  Hop- 
kins Press.  1917. 

41-3,    1 1 1-17.     The  closed  shop. 


Periodicals 


American  Catholic  Quarterly  Review.  29:338-41.  Ap.  '04.  The 
closed  shop.    John  A.  Ryan. 

American  Economic  Association  Publications.  3d  series.  4:190- 
210.  F.  '03.  Problems  of  organized  labor,  discussion.  Sam- 
uel B.  Donnelly  et  al. 

American  Economic  Association  Publications.  3d  series.  6:140- 
59.  F.  '05.  The  causes  of  the  union  shop  policy.  John  R.  Com- 
mons. 

American  Economic  Association  Publications.  3d  series.  6:200- 
15.  F.  '05.  Discussion  on  the  open  or  closed  shop.  Edward 
A.   Ross  et  al. 

^American  Economic  Review.  8:752-62.  D.  '18.  Closed  shop 
versus  open   shop.    H.   E.   Hoagland. 

American  Journal  of  Sociology.  10:137-8.  Jl.  '04.  Labor  prob- 
lems of  the  twentieth  century. 

American  Machinist.  53  :645-6.  S.  30.  '20.  What  is  an  open  shop  ? 

Arena.  29:586-92.  Je.  '03.  The  right  of  the  laborer  to  his  job. 
Walter  S.  Logan. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  xxxvii 

Atlantic  Monthly.  104:469-76.  O.  '09.  Trade  unions  and  the 
individual  worker.    J.   T.   Lincoln. 

Atlantic  Monthly.  129:585-93.  My.  '22.  The  U.S.  Steel  Corpora- 
tion.    Kirby  Page. 

Bulletin  of  the  Taylor  Society.  Vol.  6.  No.  i.  F.  '21.  The  three 
shift  system  in  the  steel  industry.     Horace  B.  Drury. 

Business  Progress  Bulletin.  D.  '20.  p.  2.  The  open  shop  in  in- 
dustry. 

ColUer's  Weekly.  68:7-8,  20,  22.  Jl.  23,  '21.  That  the  people  may 
decide.    Whiting  Williams. 

Current  Opinion.  51:654-6.  D.  '11.  The  questionable  methods 
of  trade  unions. 

Current  Opinion.  61 :44.  Jl.  '16.  Methodists  balk  at  an  endorse- 
ment of  the  preferential  shop. 

Current  Opinion.  70:295-9.  Mr.  '21.  A  battle  of  titans. 

Government.  2:7-16.    O.  '07.    Open  shop.    M.   Gushing. 

Gunton,     21 :538-5i.     D.  '01.     Employers  and  labor  unions. 

Gunton.  25 :  102-9.    Ag.  '03.    The  union  versus  the  open  shop. 

Gunton.  26:9-16.    Ja.    '04.    A  new  phase  of  the  labor  conflict. 

Gunton.    27:1-13.    Jl.  '04.    Principle  of  the  open  shop. 

Independent.  55:1217-18.   My.  21,  '03.    The  union  shop. 

Independent.  68:1112-15.  My.  26,  '10.  The  employer  and  the 
labor  union.    Marcus  M.  Marks. 

Independent.  105:16-17.  Ja.  i,  '21.  Steel  and  the  open  shop. 

Industrial  Management.  61 :37-9.  Ja.  i,  '21.  Open  shop  and  the 
motives  back  of  it.  R.  E.  Fox. 

Journal  of  Political  Economy.  20:928-52.  N.  '12.  The  economic 
basis  of  the  fight  for  the  closed  shop.    H.  T.  Lewis. 

tjohns  Hopkins  University  Studies.  29:431-617.  1911.  The 
closed  shop  in  American  trade  unions.  Frank  T.  Stockton. 
Reprinted   in   book   form.     New   Era    Printing  Co.      191 1. 

Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies.     32:9-182,     1914.     Jurisdic- 
tion in  American  building  trades  unions. 
p.  41-2.     Closed  shop. 

Cabor  Journal  (Rochester,  N.Y.).  F.  17,  '05.  Debate  on  the 
open  or  closed  shop  between  Samuel  Gompers  and  Howard 
W.  Clark. 

Literary  Digest.  66:27-8.  Ag.  7,  '20.    The  open  shop  in  politics. 

Literary  Digest.  67:18-19.  N.  27,  '20.  The  coming  open  shop 
war. 

Literary  Digest.  67:16-17.  D.  18,  '20.  West  Virginia's  war. 


xxxviii  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

♦Literary  Digest.  68:12-13,  Ja.  i,  '21.  Opening  guns  in  the  open 
shop  war. 

Literary  Digest.  68:18-19.  Ja.  8,  '21.  The  open  shop  fight  in 
the  clothing  trade. 

♦Literary  Digest.  68:32.  F.  19,  '21.  The  churches  vs.  the  open 
shop. 

McClures.  19:483-92.  O.  '02.  What  organized  labor  has 
learned.    Ralph  M.  Easley. 

McClure's.  36:708-14.  Ap.  '11.  The  New  York  cloak  makers' 
strike.    E.   Wyatt. 

Monthly  Labor  Review.  11:720-1.  O.  '20.  Demand  of  anthracite 
coal  mines  and  award  of  the  commission. 

Monthly  Labor  Review.  12:194-7.  Ja.  '21.  Recent  decisions  relat- 
ing to  the  closed  shop. 

National  Civic  Federation  Review,  i  ig.  Je.  '04.  The  open  shop 
debate. 

*New  Jersey.  8:21-4.  N. '20.  Closed  shop  and  open  shop  terminol- 
ogy. Paul  Studensky. 

New  Republic.  25:92-4.  D.  22,  '20.  The  outsider  in  labor  dis- 
putes. 

New  Repubhc.  25:185-6.  Ja.  12,  '21.  The  cause  of  hold-up 
unionism. 

New  Republic.  25:255-7.  Ja.  26,  '21.  Who  is  behind  the  open 
shop  campaign?    Savel  Zimand. 

New  Republic.  25:338-41,  362-3;  26:13-16,  39-42,  62-5,  98-101,  129- 
31.  F.  i6-Mr.  30,  '21.  The  labor  spy:  a  survey  of  industrial 
espionage.     Sidney  Howard. 

North  American.  174:30-45.  Ja.  '02.  Consolidated  labor.  Car- 
roll D.  Wright. 

North  American.  180:912-17.  Je.  '05.  An  open  versus  a  closed 
shop.    John   Bascom. 

Outlook.    67:570-1.    Mr.  9,  '01.    Two  anti-labor  decisions. 

Outlook.  125:637-1-642.  Ag.  II,  '20.  The  open  shop  issue.  Theodore 
M.  Ave-Lallemant. 

PubHc  Policy.  13:15-19.  Jl.  15,  '05.  The  open  shop.  Thomas  F. 
Woodlock. 

Quarterly  Journal  of  Economics.  18:492-512.  Ag.  '04.  The  right 
to  work.    John  Bascom. 

Quarterly  Journal  of  Economics.  19:400-33.  My.  '05.  Types  of 
American  labor  organizations.    John  R.  Commons. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  xxxix 

Saturday  Evening  Post.  177:6-7,  2,2.     O.  29,  '04.     The  open  shop. 
The   labor   leader's   view.     John  Mitchell. 
The  workman's   side.      Clarence    S.   Darrow. 
The   land   of  the  free.     Owen   Wister. 
The  employer's  side.      David  M.   Parry. 

Survey.  23:505-6.  Ja.   15,  '10.    The  shirtwaist  workers'  strike. 

Survey.  32:632-3.  S.  26,  '14.  The  way  of  a  transgressor  in  a 
closed  shop.    John  A.  Fitch. 

Survey.  Z7  716-18.  Mr.  24,  '17.  Open  shop  in  San  Francisco.  R. 
N.  Lynch. 

Survey.  43:333.  Ja.  3,  '20.  Needs  of  industry  versus  demands  of 
organized  labor.  Henry  R.  Seager. 

Survey.  45  :766.  F.  26,  '21.  What  employers  and  workers  are  say- 
ing. Thomas  C.  Blaisdell,  Jr. 

University  of  California  Publications  in  Economics.  3:409-47. 
1913-  Jurisdictional  disputes  resulting  from  structural  dif- 
ferences in  American  Trade  Unions.    Solomon  Blum. 

tUniversity  of  Texas.  Bulletin,  no.  1859.  Open  shop  or  closed 
shop.    Charles  A.  Gulick,  Jr.  6op.  1920. 

Van  Norden.  3:59-63.  Je.  '08.  Trade  unions.  American  Fed- 
eration of  Labor  and  its  plans  to  have  laws  enacted.  T. 
Burke. 

Yale  Law  Journal.  22:73-95.  D.  '12.  The  American  Federation 
of  Labor.    Jay  N.  Baker. 

Yale  Review.  19:144-58.  Ag.  '10.  Unionism  and  the  courts. 
George  G.  Groat. 

Affirmative  References 
(For  the  Closed  or  Union  Shop) 

Books  and  Pamphlets 

American  Federation  of  Labor.  History — encyclopedia — reference 

book.  1919. 

p.  304-6.     Open  shop. 
American  Federation  of  Labor.  An  open  letter  to  ministers  of 

*     the  gospel,  up.  About  1920. 

Browne,  Waldo  R.  What's  what  in  the  labor  movement.  B.  W. 
Huebsch.    1921. 


p- 

13-14- 

American  plan. 

p. 

306-7. 

Lockwood  Committee, 

p. 

352. 

Non-union   shop. 

p. 

358-9. 

Open   shop. 

p. 

384-5. 

Preferential   shop. 

p. 

497-8. 

Trade    agreement. 

p. 

503-5. 

Trade  union. 

p. 

532. 

Union    shop. 

xl  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Budish,   J.   M.   and   Soule,   George.     The  new  unionism   in   the 

clothing  industry.  Harcourt,  Brace,  &  Howe  1920. 
^Commission  of  Inquiry.    Interchurch  World  Movement.  Report 

on  the  steel  strike  of  1919.    Harcourt,  Brace  &  Howe.     1920. 
fCommission  of  Inquiry.  Interchurch  World  Movement.  Public 

opinion   and   the  steel   strike :   supplementary  reports   of   the 

investigators.  Harcourt,  Brace  &  Co.  1921. 
Commons,    John    R.     Labor    and    administration.      Macmillan. 

1913- 
•     p.   85-105.     The  union   shop. 

Darrow,  Clarence  S.     The  open  shop.     Hammersmark  Publish- 
ing Co.  Reprinted  in  1920  by  Charles  H.  Kerr  &  co.  32p.  1904. 
^Federal  Council  of  the  Churches  of  Christ  in  America.  Church 

commission  questions   fairness   of   open   shop   movement,    ip. 

Multigraphed.  D.  27,  1920. 
Foster,  Frank  K.     Has  the  non-unionist  a  right  to  work,  how, 

when    and   where    he   pleases?      American    Federationist   of 

Labor.  9p.  1904. 
Foster,  William  Z.  The  great  steel  strike  and  its  lessons.  B.  W 

Huebsch  Co.  1921. 
Gompers,  Samuel.  Autocracy  and  labor.  2p.  Multigraphed.   1921. 
Gompers,  Samuel.     Collective  bargaining.     American  Federation 

of  Labor.  7p.  1920. 
Gompers,  Samuel.     Labor  and  the  employer.     E.  P.  Button  & 

Co.     1920. 

p.    108-17.     The  union   shop   and  the   open   shop. 
Gompers,  Samuel.     Open  shop  editorials.     American  Federation 

of  Labor.  I5p.  1904. 
*Gompers,   Samuel.     Union   shop  and  its  antithisis.     American 

Federation  of  Labor.  1920. 
Hapgood,    Powers.    In   non-union    mines.    Bureau   of    Industrial 

Research.  1921. 

LaFollette,   Robert  M.     The  making  of  America.     1906. 

Vol.  8.  p.  199-214.     Causes  of  the  open  shop  policy.     John  R.  Commons. 

Lum,    Dyer    D.      The    philosophy    of    trade    unions.      American 

Federation  of  Labor.     1892. 
Marot,   Helen.     American  labor  unions,  by  a  member.     Henry 

Holt  &  Co.     1914. 

p.    120-8.      Union    recognition   and   the   union   shop. 

*Methodist  Federation  for  Social  Service.  Statement  by  the 
executive  committee  and  council.  2p.  Multigraphed.  N.  22, 
1920. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  xli 

Mitchell,  John.  Organized  labor.  American  Book  and  Bible 
House.     1903. 

Morrison,  Frank.  Labor  day.  2p.  Multigraphed.  American  Fed- 
eration of  Labor.  1921. 

Morrison,  Frank.  The  union  or  non-union  shop,  which?  American 
Federation  of  Labor.  3p.  Multigraphed.  1921. 

*National  Catholic  Welfare  Council.  Department  of  Social 
Action.    The  open  shop  controversy.    3p.  Multigraphed.  1921. 

♦National  Catholic  Welfare  Council.  Department  of  Social  Ac- 
tion.    Statement  on  the  open  shop.  ip.  Multigraphed.  N.  1920. 

*Owens,  John  G.  An  exposition  of  the  open  shop :  A  study 
of  the  conditions  surrounding  men  employed  as  individuals, 
and  what  this  condition  means  to  society  at  large.  Cleveland 
Federation  of  Labor.  8p.   1920. 

*Owens,  John  G.  An  exposition  of  the  union  shop :  What  the 
functioning  of  the  union  shop  in  industry  means  to  society 
at  large.  Cleveland  Federation  of  Labor.  I5p.  1291. 

Ryan,  John  A.  Social  reconstruction.  Macmillan.  1920. 

Chap.   7.    p.    121-40.      The  justification    of   the   labor   union. 

Smith,  David  W.     The  way  out.    J.  H.  Barry  Co.     1904. 
tSmith,   Samuel   G.   The  industrial  conflict.    Fleming  H.   Revell 

Co.  1907. 

p.  75-82.    The  closed  shop. 

Spielman,  Jean  E.  The  open  shop  via  the  injunction  route. 
Flour,  Cereal,  Mill,  Grain  Elevator  and  Linseed  Oil  Work- 
ers Local  Union  no.  92.  Minneapolis.  3ip.  1920. 

Teesdale,  E.  The  open  shop  versus  the  closed  shop.  i6p.  About 
1921. 

U.S.  Railroad  Labor  Board.  Order  in  re  docket  404.  S.  16,  1921, 
Vorse,  Mary  H.  Men  and  steel.  Boni  and  Liveright.   1920. 
tZimand,   Savel.    The   open   shop   drive:   who   is   behind   it   and 
where  is  it  going?  Bureau  of  Industrial  Research.  55p.  1921. 


Pamphlets  advocating  the  closed  or  union  shop  may  be  obtained 
from: 

The  American  Federation  of  Labor,  Washington,   D.  C 
Bureau    of    Industrial    Research,    289    Fourth    Avenue,    New 
York  City. 

Cleveland  Federation  of  Labor,  2540  East  Ninth  St.,  Cleve- 
land, O. 


^lii  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Articles  in  support  of  the  closed  union  shop  have  appeared 
in  most  of  the  labor  magazines  and  papers.  A  list  of  labor 
periodicals  may  be  found  in  the  American  Newspaper  Annual 
and  Directory,  as  well  as  in  Lord  and  Thomas  Pocket  Directory 
of  the  American  Press.  In  the  following  Hst  are  named  a  few 
of  the  best  of  these  periodicals : 

American   Federationist,    (monthly),   Washington,   D.    C. 

Boilermakers'  and  Iron  Shipbuilders'  Journal,  Kansas  City, 
Mo. 

Bricklayer,  Mason,  and  Plasterer,  (monthly),  Indianapolis, 
Ind. 

Bridgman's   Magazine,    (monthly),   Indianapolis,   Ind. 

Carpenter,    (monthly),    Indianapolis,    Ind. 

International  Brotherhood  of  Blacksmiths,'  Drop  Forgers', 
and  Helpers'  Monthly  Journal,  1150  Transportation  Bldg., 
Chicago,  111. 

International  Moulders'  Journal,  (monthly).  Tribune  Bldg., 
Cincinnati,  O. 

International  Steam  Engineer,    (monthly),  Chicago,  111. 

Journal  of  the  Switchmens'  Union  of  North  America, 
(monthly),  Buffalo,  N.  Y. 

Labor,   (monthly),  405  Machinists  Bldg.,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Labor  Age,   (monthly),  41  Union  Square,  New  York  City. 

Labor  Clarion,  (weekly),  San  Francisco,  Cal. 

Leader,   (daily),  Milwaukee,  Wis. 

Life  and  Labor,   (monthly),  Chicago,  111. 

Locomotive  Engineers'  Journal,  (monthly),  1124  Brotherhood 
of  Locomotive  Engineers'  Bldg.,  Cleveland,  O. 

Locomotive  Firemen  and  Enginemen's  Magazine,  (semi- 
monthly), 21 12  East  46  St.,  Cleveland,  O. 

Machinists'  Monthly  Journal,  Machinists'  Bldg.,  Washington, 
D.  C. 

Motorman  and  Conductor,    (monthly),  Detroit,  Mich. 

New  Majority,  (weekly),  166  W.  Washington  St.,  Chicago, 
111. 

Painter  and  Decorator,   (monthly),  Lafayette,  Ind. 

Plumbers,'  Gas  and  Steam  Fitters*  Journal,  (monthly),  Chi- 
cago, 111. 

Progressive  Labor  World,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Railroad  Trainman,  (monthly),  Brotherhood  of  Railroad 
Trainmen's  Bldg.,  Cleveland,  O. 

Railway  Carmen's  Journal,  Kansas  City,  Mo. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  xliii 

Railway  Clerk,  (semi-monthly),  502  Central  National  Bank 
Bldg.,  Cincinnati,  O. 

Railway  Maintenance  of  Way  Employees'  Journal,  (month- 
ly), Detroit,  Mich. 

Railway   Telegrapher,    (monthly),    St.   Joseph,    Mo. 

Seamen's  Journal,    (weekly),    San  Francisco,   Cal. 

State  Federationist,  New  York  City. 

Typographical  Journal,  (monthly),  Bankers'  Trust  Bldg., 
Indianapolis,   Ind. 

Union  Record,  (daily),  Seattle,  Wash. 

Periodicals 

*American    Economic    Association.      Publications.      3d    series. 

4 '173-83.     F.   '03.     The  union   and  the   open   shop.     Henry 

White. 
American    Economic    Association.    Publications.    3d    series.    6: 

160-77.  F.  '05.    The  issue  between  the  open  and  closed  shop. 

John  G.  Brooks. 
American    Economic    Association.    Publications.    3d    series.    6: 

195-9-    F-  '05-    The  open  shop  versus  trade  unionism.  Thomas 

I.  Kidd. 
American  Federationist.     11:212-17.     Mr.  '04.     The  open  shop. 

E.  A.  Moffett. 
American   Federationist.     11:490-2.     Je.   '04.     More   open   shop 

hypocrisy.     Samuel  Gompers. 
American  Federationist.     12:13-16.     Ja.  '05.     Open  shop  in  gov- 
ernment.    William  T.   Keleher. 
American    Federationist.     12:221-3.     Ap.    '05.      Union    shop    is 

right.     Samuel  Gompers. 
American  Federationist.    12 :269-74.    My.    '05.    Demand  of  labor 

unions    for   the   closed    shop   is   justifiable.     Harold    Chayes 

and  Chas.  Leviton. 
American    Federationist.      12:512-14.     Ag.     '05.     Judicial   prej- 
udice against  union  shop  agreement.     Samuel  Gompers. 
♦American     Federationist.       14:476-9.       Capitalists'     war     fund 

to  crush  labor.     Samuel  Gompers. 
American   Federationist.     15  :i6i-78.     M'-,    '08.     Supreme   court 

decision   in   the   Hatters'    case, — affe(  is    all   organized   labor. 

A  symposium. 
American    Federationist.      15:180-92.     ^Mr.      '08.     The    supreme 

court  decision  in  the  Hatters'  case.     Samuel  Gompers. 


<xliv  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

American   Federationist.     15:195-9.     Mr.     '08.     Supreme   court 

decision  in  the  Hatters'  case. 
♦American  Federationist.   15 :645-67.  S.  '08.  That  capitalist  war 

fund.    A  symposium  by  men  who  think  and  act. 

James    Duncan,   John    Roach,    G.    W.   Perkins,   J.   W.    Kline,   James    M. 
Lynch,  Jere   L.    Sullivan,   and    Samuel   L.    Landers. 

American  Federationist.     15 :973-8o.     N.     '08.     President  Roose- 
velt's  attack  on   labor.     Samuel   Gompers. 
American    Federationist.     17:17-32.    Ja.   '10.    Our    test   case   in 

the  U.  S.  Supreme  Court.    (Petition  and  brief). 
A-merican    Federationist.      17:881-3.     O.     '10. 
American  Federationist.     17 :884-9.    O.    '10.    Labor's  differences 

with  Mr.  Marcus  Marks  et  al. 
American  Federationist.     17:891-2.    O.    '10.    The  strike  for  the 

union  shop  decided  legal.     James  J.  Freel. 
American   Federationist.     17:853-6.     O.     *io.     The   open   shop, 

city  of  refuge.     Stuart  Reid. 
American  Federationist.     18:22-6.    Ja.     '11.     The  open  shop  vs. 

the   union    shop    from   the    standpoint   of   the    wage    earner. 

W.  P.  Stacy. 
American  Federationist.     18:117-18.    F,  '11.     No  shop  !s  closed. 

Samuel  Gompers. 
American   Federationist.     19:321.     Ap.     '12.     Open   and  closed 

shops.    W.  E.  Bryan. 
American  Federationist.     25:1095-7.     D.  '18.     Labor  will  resist. 

Samuel  Gompers. 
♦American    Federationist.    27:746-51.    Ag.    '20.    The    union    shop 

and  its  antithesis.     Samuel  Gompers. 
American    Federationist.      27:929-36.      O.      '20.      The    United 

States    Chamber   of    Commerce    subtle    but    futile.      Samuel 

Gompers. 
American    Federationist.     28:49-51.     Ja.     '21.     The   open   shop. 

James  Lord. 
American   Federationist.     28:61.     Ja.     '21.     Editorial.     Samuel 

Gompers. 
tAmerican  Federationist.    28:109-15.  F.  '21.  Open  shop  hypocrisy 

exposed.  Samuel  Gompers. 
American   Federationist.  28:225-7.   Mr.   '21.   Call  it  by  its   right 

name.  Samuel  Gompers. 
American  Federationist.  28:395-400.  My.  '21.  A  historic  labor  re- 
port. Andrew  Furuseth. 
American  Federationist.  28:483-94.  Je.  '21.  Industrial  kaiserism. 

Samuel  Gompers. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  xlv 

American  Federationist.  28:641-2.  Ag.  '21.  An  open  shop  prop- 
agandist. Victor  S.  Yarros. 

American  Federationist.  28:722.  S.  '21.  The  union  shop  and 
freedom. 

American  Federationist.  28:1028-31.  D.  '21.  How  the  union  shop 
really  works — the  story  of  a  veteran  foreman. 

American  Federationist.  29:406-7.  Je.  '22,  The  "American  plan" 
in  Canada.  John  A.  Flett. 

American    Federationist.    29:487-99.     Jl.    '22.     Autocratic    "asso- 
ciated employers" — their  aims, 
if  American  Magazine.  72:545-51.  S.  '11.  Why  men  fight  for  the 
closed  shop.     Clarence  S.  Darrow. 

Annals  of  the  American  Academy.  24:296-315.  S.  '04.  New 
unionism,  the  problem  of  the  unskilled  worker.  William  E. 
Walling. 

Arena.  39^544-7.  My.  '08.  Through  the  closed  shop  to  the 
open  world.     Horace  Traubel. 

Atlantic  Monthly.  125:225-34.  F.  '20.  The  labor  policy  of  the 
American  trusts.  Carleton  H.  Parker. 

Brotherhood  of  Locomotive  Firemen  and  Enginemen's   Maga- 
.  zine.    69:21-2.    Ag.   15,  '20.    The  United  States  Chamber  of 
Commerce  by    referendum    declares    war    on    union    labor. 
.Laurence  Todd. 

Charities.  15:190-2.  N.  4,  '05.  The  open  shop  in  the  garment 
trade. 

Finance  and  Industry.  43:24-}- 77.  F.  19,  '21,  Here  is  union's  view- 
point on  open  shop.   Samuel  Gompers. 

Government.  2:7-16.  O.  '07.  Open  shop  reflections.  Marshall 
Gushing. 

Green  Bag.  18:339-47.  Je.  '06.  Closed  shop  controversy.  Chas. 
R.   Darling. 

Independent.  54:2228-30.  S.  18,  '02.  Dictation  by  the  unions 
John  Mitchell. 

Independent.    55:1217-18.    My.  21,  '03.    The  union  shop. 
'  ^Independent.   56:1069-72.     My.    12,   '04.    The   open   shop    means 
the  destruction  of  the  unions.  William  E.  Walling. 

Independent.  58:418-22.  F.  23,  '05.  The  defeats  of  labor.  Wil- 
liam E.  Walling. 

Independent.  63:990-3.  O.  24,  '07.  The  open  shop  from  the 
view  point  of  the  union  man.    A.  J.  Portenar. 

*International.  11:288-300.  Jl.  '05.  New  peril  for  the  trade  un- 
ion.  J.  G.  Brooks. 


xlvi  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

■^International   Moulders'   Journal.   56:665-9,    S.   '20.   The  union 

shop  and  its  antithesis.    Samuel  Gompers. 
International  Quarterly.  11:288-300.     Jl.     '05.     New  peril  for  the 

trade  union.    John  G.  Brooks. 
Legislative  Labor  News.  9 :5.  D.     '20.     Catholic  Welfare  Coun- 
cil condemns  open  shop  as  industrial  slavery. 
Legislative  Labor   News.   9 :5.   D.     '20.     Sample  incident  of  the 

open  shop  drive. 
Literary  Digest.  43:341-2.   S.   2,     '11.     A  defense  of  the  closed 

shop. 
Literary  Digest.  68:36-7.     Ja.  8,     '21.     Employers  poisoning  the 

springs  of   childhood. 
Locomotive  Engineers'  Journal.  54:877.  O.  '20.  The  open  shop. 

T.  P.  Whelan. 
Locomotive    Engineers'    Journal.    55:156-7.    F.    '21.    The    United 

States  Chamber  of  Commerce  declares  for  the  open  shop. 
Locomotive    Engineers'   Journal.   55:187-8.    Mr.   '21.   The   closed 

shop.  G.  W.  Smith. 
Locomotive    Engineers'    Journal.  55 :295,    Ap.  '21.    Against    the 

closed  shop. 
Locomotive    Engineers'    Journal.    55:513.    Je.    '21.    Grand    Chief 

Stone's  position  on  the  open  shop  made  clear. 
Locomotive  Engineers'  Journal.  55  :545.  Je.  '21,  Gary  sowing  open 

shop  propaganda  in  Syracuse  University. 
Locomotive    Engineers'   Journal.   55 :694.    Ag.    '21.    Gary   sowing 

open  shop  propaganda  in  Syracuse  University. 
Locomotive    Engineers'   Journal.   55 :763.    S.   '21.   The   American 

plan. 
Locomotive   Engineers'   Journal.   56 :44.   Ja.   '22.   The   open   shop 

crusade.  T.  P.  Whelan. 
Locomotive    Engineers'    Journal.    56:62.    Ja.    '22.    Rabbi    Silver 

assails  open  shop  movement. 
Locomotive  Engineers'  Journal.  56:194.  Mr.  '22.  The  "under  cover 

man." 
Locomotive   Engineers'   Journal.   56:238.    Ap.   '22.    Churches   de- 
clare for  union  shop. 
Locomotive  Firemen  and  Enginemen's  Magazine.  69:11-14,  Ag.  15, 

'20.    Big  business's    assault   on   the   great    interchurch   world 

movement  fails  to  suppress  the  steel  strike  report. 
Locomotive   Firemen   and   Enginemen's    Magazine.   69:21-2.   Ag. 

15,  '20.  United  States  Chamber  of  Commerce  by  referendum 

declares  war  on  union  labor. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  xlvii 

Locomotive  Firemen  and  Enginemen's  Magazine.  69:9-10.  S.  15, 

'20.  Military  rule  and  the  open  shop. 
Locomotive  Firemen  and  Enginemen's  Alagazine.  69:1-3.  O.  i, '20. 

The  open   shop  and  the  political  campaign. 
Locomotive  Firemen  and  Enginemen's  Magazine.  69:17-18.  O.  15, 

'20.  Open  shop  vs.  closed  shop  issue  in  the  campaign. 
Locomotive  Firemen  and  Enginemen's  Magazine.  69:4-5.  N.  15, 

*20.  Labor  crushers  come  out  in  the  open  with  their  systematic 

war  on  organized  workers. 
Locomotive  Firemen  and  Enginemen's  Magazine.  69:7-8.  D.  i,  '20. 

The  injunction  as  an  open  shop  weapon. 
Locomotive  Firemen  and  Enginemen's  Magazine.  69:12-13.  D.  i, 

'20.  The  menace  of  the  open  shop. 
Locomotive  Firemen  and  Enginemen's  Magazine.   70:1-3.  Ja.   i, 

'21.  Churches  denounce  the  open  shop  crusade. 
Locomotive  Firemen  and  Enginemen's  Magazine.  70:11-12.  Ja.  i^ 

'21.     The  union  or  closed  shop. 
Locomotive  Firemen  and  Enginemen's  Magazine.  70:7.  Ja.  15,  '21. 

Church  Federation  denounces  open  shop  crusade. 
Locomotive   Firemen   and   Enginemen's   Magazine.    70:7.   Je.    15, 

'21.  Chamber  of  Commerce  interests  and  the  open  shop. 
Nation    (London).    14:366-8.   Je.   6,     '14.     Battle   of   the   closed 

shop. 
Nation.   109:488.  O.   11,  '19.    Mr.  Gary  moralizes. 
Nation.  111:609.  D.  i,     '20.     The  fight  to  break  the  unions. 
Nation.    111:639.    D.   8,    '20  Labor's   Valley   Forge.     Neil    Bur- 

kinshaw. 
Nation.   111:725-6.  D.  22,  '20.  Closed  factories  and  open  shop. 

W.  H.  Crook. 
Nation.    112:478-9.    Mr.   30,    '21.    Unemployment   and   the   closed 

shop  in  Cohoes.  Cedric  Long. 
Nation.  112:529-30.  Ap.  13,  '21.  How  open  is  the  open  shop? 
National    Civic   Federation    Review.     1:1-5,    8.     Jl.     '04.     Is    the 

closed  shop  illegal  or  criminal? 
National  Civic  Federation   Review,     i  :6-8.    Jl.     '04.     The  open 

shop  in  question  in   Great  Britain. 
National    Civic    Federation    Review,     i  :g,    16.    Jl.    '04.     Liberty, 

democracy,  productivity  and  the  closed  shop.     Edwin   R.   A. 

Seligman. 

National  Civic  Federation  Review,  i  :i4.  O.  15,     '04.     Open  shop 
discrimination.    John  A.  Dyche. 


xlviii  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

*New  Majority.    5:10.    Ja.   22,   '21.    Union   or  non-union   shop, 

which  ?     Frank   Morrison. 
fNew  Jersey.  8:77-9.  Jl.  '21.  Three  roads  open  before  employ- 
ers :    report   of   the    Committee    on    Industrial    Relations    of 

the  New  Jersey  State  Chamber  of  Commerce. 
New  Repubhc.    14:132-3,    Mr.  2,  '18.    Shops  and  organized  la- 
bor. 
New  Republic.  24:59.  D.   15,  '20.  War  in  the  clothing  industry. 
*New  Republic.  25 :28-30.    D.  8,  '20.    The  open  shop  crusade. 
New  Republic.  25:243-4.  Ja.  26,  '21.  Moon  calf  at  large. 
New  Republic.  25:255-7.  Ja.  26.  '21.  Who  is  behind  the  open  shop 

campaign?  Savel  Zimand. 
New  Republic.  25  :335-7.  F.  16,  '21.  Christian  ethics  and  Pittsburgh 

employers. 
New  Republic.  25:375-6.  F.  23,  '21.  Mr.  Zimand  replies. 
New   Republic.   26:146-8.    Ap.   6,    '21.   Labor   in    relation    to   the 

American  ideal. 
New    York    Times.    F.    11,    '21.    Catholic    War    Council    insists 

open  shop  is  blow  at  unions. 
North  American  Review.   195 :6i8-29.    My.  '12.    The  open  shop. 

E.  H.  Neal. 
Outlook.   82:608-13.   Mr.    17,   '06.    Nuremburg,   the  city  of  the 

closed  shop.    W.  D.  P.  BHss. 
Outlook.     125:11.  My.  5,  '20.     Labor  and  the  open  shop. 
Outlook.     125 :64.    My.    12,   '20.     The  open   shop. 
Quarterly  Journal  of  Economics.   19:400-33.    My.  '05.    Types  of 

American  labor     organizations, — the     teamsters  of     Chicago. 

John   R.    Commons. 

p.    421-33.      The    closed    and    open    stable. 
Quarterly    Journal    of     Economics.     25:730-41.    Ag.     '11.     The 

check-off   system   and  the   closed    shop    among    the    United 

Mine   Workers.    F.   A.   King. 
Railroad  Trainman.  37:680-1.  N.  '20.  Employers  anxious  to  try 

their  strength. 
Railroad  Trainman.  2>1  -738.  D.  '20.  Closed  shop. 
Railroad   Trainman.   38:106-8.    F.   '21.   Bethlehem   steel   boycotts 

employers  of  closed  shop  unions. 
Railroad  Trainman.  38:170-1.   Mr  '21.  They  all  take  a  slam  at 

labor. 
Railroad  Trainman.  38:172-3.   Mr.   '21.   The  fight   for  the  open 

shop. 
Railroad  Trainman.  38:174-5.  Mr.  '21.  Facing  industrial  war. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  xlix 

Railroad  Trainman,  38:274.  My.  '21.  The  churches  vs  the  open 

shop. 
Railroad   Trainman.   38:278.    My.   '21.    On   the   great  open   shop 

conspiracy. 
Railroad  Trainman.  38:406.  Jl.  '21.  Organized  capital  makes  war 

on  the  American  people. 
Railroad  Trainman.  38:433-4.  Jl.  '21.  Gary  on  unionism. 
Railroad   Trainman.    38:462.    Ag.    '21.    No   closed    shop    for   the 

farmer. 
Review  of  Reviews.  26:603-4.     N.  '02.     The  rights  of  non-union 

workmen  and  of  union  men. 
Review  of  Reviews.  27:215-16.  F.  '03.    The  non-union  man  and 

the  "scab." 
Review   of   Reviews.   31 :589-93.   My.   '05.    The  labor  question's 

newer  aspects.    Victor  S.  Yarros. 
*Social    Service    Bulletin.   2:1-4.    Ja.    '21.    The    open    shop    cam- 
paign. 
Socialist  Review.   10:41-4.  Ap.  '21.  Labor's  answer  to  the  open 

shop  drive.  William  E.  Bohn. 
Steam  Shovel  and  Dredge.   i5  755-6i.    S.  '11.    Why  men  fight 

for  the  closed  shop.    Clarence  S.  Darrow. 
Survey.  31 :525-6.  Ja.  31,  '14.   Trade  unions  and  the  law.  Henry 

R.  Seager. 
Survey.     32:304-5.   Je.    13,   '14.     The   closed  shop   and  the  labor 

boycott.    Henry  W.  Laidler. 
Survey.  37 :  192-4.  N.    25,  '16.    The  open  shop  in  San  Francisco. 

Harry  F.   Grady. 
Survey.    37:717-18.    Mr.  24,  '17.    A  rejoinder.    Harry  F.  Grady. 
fSurvey.  43 :53-6.   N.  8,   '19.    Closed   shop  and  other   industrial 

issues  of  the  steel  strike.    J.  A.  Fitch. 
*Survey.  44:532-3.     Jl.  17,  '20.     The  closed  shop.  John  R.  Com- 
mons. 
Survey.  45  :35o.  D.  4,  '20.    Catholics  on  the  open  shop. 
Survey.  45 :420-i.  D.   18,  '20.    The  negro  and  industrial  peace. 

T.  J.  Woofter. 
Survey.  45 :428.  D.  18,  '20.    The  open  shop.  William  L.     Chen- 

ery. 
Survey.  45:491-5.  Ja.  i,  '21.  The  Untermeyer  revelations.  W.  L. 

Chenery  and  J.  A.  Fitch. 
Survey.    45  :494-5  Ja.  i,  '21.     The  open  shop  developments.     Wil- 
liam L.   Chener3^ 
Survey.    45:538-9.  Ja.  8,  '21.  Industrial  principles. 


1  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Survey.  45  :558-9.  Ja.  15,  '21.  The  open  shop  movement. 
tSurvey.  45:783-818.  Mr.  5,  '21.  The  long  day:  a  series  of  articles 

John  A.  Fitch  et  al. 
Survey.  45  :830-2.  Mr.  5,  '21.  Labor  and  the  open  shop. 
Survey.  46:77.  Ap.  16,  '21.  The  open  shop. 
Survey.  46:211-12.  My.   14,  '21.  Open  shop  encyclopedia,  Esther 

B.  Moses. 
Survey.  46:699.  S.  24.  '21.  Open  shop  guild. 
Survey.  46 : 700-2.  S.  24,  '21.  Packers'  open  shop. 
Survey.  47:224.  N.  5,  '21.  Packers  and  the  open  shop. 
Weekly  Bulletin.  2:1.  F.  16,  '22.  Does  the  Federation  of  Labor 

advocate  the  closed  shop? 

Negative  References 
(For  the  Open  Shop) 

Books  and  Pamphlets 

American    Exchange   National   Bank.      (128     Broadway,     New 

York  City)  The  closed  shop.  I2p.  1920. 
Anthracite    Coal   Strike    Commission.   Report  on   the   anthracite 
coal  strike  of  1902.  Government  Printing  Office.  1903. 

p.  64-5,    7S-6,   83.      Endorses   the  open   shop. 
Associated   Employers   of  Indianapolis.   The   growth   and   pros- 
perity of  Indianapolis  and  how  it  is  promoted  by  the  open 

shop.  24p,  1922. 
Associated  Employers  of  Indianapolis.  Labor  conditions  and  the 

open  shop  in  Indianapohs.   I2p.  1920. 
Associated    Employers   of    Indianapohs.    Open    shop   foundry   in 

Indianapohs  relates  true  instance  of  increased  production  and 

employee  efficiency.  2p.   1921. 
Associated  Employers  of   Indianapolis.  Recent  decisions  of  the 

U.  S.  Supreme  Court  upholding  the  open  shop.  26p.  1921. 
Associated  Employers  of  Indianapolis.  A  reply  to  the  charge  of 

the  Federal  Council  of  the  Churches  of  Christ  in  America, 

that  the  open  shop  is  an  "attempt  to  destroy  the  organized 

labor  movement."  ip.  1921. 
Barr,    Wilham    H.      Open    shop    principle    vital    to    the    United 

States.  I2p.  1920. 
Bigelow,  E.  Victor.  Mistakes  of  the  Interchurch  steel  report.  23p. 

United   States   Steel   Corporation.    1920. 
Bishop,  Joseph  B.  Theodore  Roosevelt  and  his  time.  Scribners. 

1920. 

Vol   I.   p.   249-51.     The  Miller   case. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  li 

tCitizens  Alliance  of  Minneapolis.  The  open  or  closed  shop — 
which?  29p.  1920. 

Cleveland  Chamber  of  Commerce.  The  causes  of  high  building 
costs  in  Cleveland.  39p.  1920. 

Cleveland  Chamber  of  Commerce.  Does  the  building  public  of 
Cleveland  desire  the  open  shop?  I4p.  1921. 

Cleveland  Chamber  of  Commerce.  Correspondence  between  the 
Painters'  Union  and  Mr.  Baker.  8p.  1922. 

Closed  shop  unionism,  what  it  means  to  the  workman,  the  em- 
ployer,  and   the   community.    Booklet   Publishing  Co.   1919. 

Dallas  Chamber  of  Commerce.  Dallas  adopts  the  open  shop.  I2p. 
1919. 

*Drew,  Walter.  Closed  shop  unionism,  an  analysis  with  eco- 
nomic, social  and  legal  aspects,  (reprint  from  Government 
Magazine)  i6p. 

Drew,  Walter.  Law  relating  to  the  closed  shop  contract.  Grand 
Rapids,  Mich,  38p.  1905. 

Drew,  Walter.  Trade  unionism — a  constructive  criticism.  4p.  1919. 

Eliot,  Charles  W.    Future  of  trade  unionism  and  capitalism  in 
a  democracy.  G.  P.  Putnam's  Sons.  1910. 
p.   62-3.      Open   and   closed   shop. 

Emery,  James  A.  The  philosophy  of  the  closed  shop  in  action. 
22p.  1920. 

Emery,  James  A.  Why  minorities  are  in  control.  National  As- 
sociation of  Manufacturers.   1915. 

Employers  Association,  Dayton,  Ohio.  Doom  of  the  closed 
shop  and  trade  agreement. 

Fetter,  Frank  A.    Economics.  The  Century  Company.   1918. 
Vol.   I.  p.  250. 

Gary,  Elbert  H.  Principles  and  poHcies  of  the  United  States 
Steel  Corporation.  22p.   1921. 

Greater  Miami  Employers'  Association.  One  year  of  the  open 
shop  at  Miami,  Fla.  1920. 

*Hubbard,  Elbert.  The  closed  or  open  shop,  which?  The  Roy- 
crofters.  23p.  1916, 

Hudson  County  Open  Shop  League.  Industrial  unrest,  the  cause 
and  the  remedy  in  Hudson  county.    i6p.   about   1921. 

Hudson  County  Open  Shop  League.  The  why's  of  the  open  shop. 
8p.  about  1 92 1. 

Kirby,  John.    The  open  door  for  American  workmen.  1910. 

LaFollette,  Robert  M.    The  making  of  America.  1906. 

Vol.    8.    p.    215-20.      The    law    and   the   closed    shop   contract.      Walter 
Drew. 


lii  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Laughlin,  J.  Laurence.  Latter-day  problems.  Scribners.  1909. 

Chap.    I.      p.     1-24       The    hope    for    labor    unions. 
Leland,  Wilfred  C.    Labor  unions  and  capital,  setting  forth  the 

cardinal  principles  of  labor   unions  and  the  effect  of  those 

principles    upon    the    industrial    situation,    22p.    1919. 
Merritt,    Walter    G.     Labor   unions   and  -the    law.    League    for 

Industrial  Rights.  24p. 
Merritt,  Walter  G.     The  open    shop.     American    Anti-Boycott 

Association    (now   the   League    for   Industrial    Rights).    I5p. 

1912. 
tMerritt,  Walter  G.  The  open  shop  and  industrial  liberty.  League 

for  Industrial  Rights.  42p.  1922. 
Merritt,   Walter   G.    Significance   of   the   decision  of   the   U.    S. 

Supreme  Court  in  the  case  of  the  Duplex  Printing  Press  Co. 

vs.  Deering  et  al.  I2p.  League  for  Industrial  Rights.   1921. 
fNational  Association  of  Manufacturers.  Open  shop  encyclopedia. 

248P.  1 92 1. 

Debaters  will  find  this  one  of  the  most  helpful  sources  of  information. 
National  Association  of  Manufacturers.  Open  shop  bulletins. 

No.  I.  6p.  N.   I,  '20. 

No.  2.  8p.  N.  29,  '20. 

No,  3.  8p.  Ja.   7,  '21. 

No.  4.  8p.   F.   7,  '21. 

No.  s.  8p.  Je.   3,   '21. 

No.  6.  8p.   S.  22,   '21. 

National  Association  of  Manufacturers.    Open  shop  news  service, 
(leaflets). 
No.   I.  2p.   N.   3,   '20. 
No.  2.  4p.    N.    16,   '20. 
tNo.   3.   ip.   Jl.    3,    '21.    (Reprint    Philadelphia   Public   Ledger). 

National  Association  of  Manufacturers.  Pamphlets.   (Issued  oc- 
casionally in  support  of  the  open  shop  etc.) 

No.     I.  Where   do   you   stand?     John   Kirby,  Jr.   47p.    1909. 

No.     2.  The    disadvantages    of   labor    unionism.     John   Kirby,   Jr.    39P. 
1909. 

No.     3.  The   goal   of   the    labor   trust.      John   Kirby,   Jr.    37P-    1909- 

No.     6.  Legal     and     historical     progress     of     trade     unionism.      Jesse 
Holdom.     i3P.    1909. 

No.   15.  The  boycott,   a  legal   discussion.    Walter  Drew.     T4p.     1909. 

tNo.   16.  Closed    shop   unionism.     Walter    Drew.     2op.     19 10. 

No.   17.  What   does    the   closed   shop   ftiean   to    you?     John    Kirby,   Jr. 
36p.    1910. 

No.  23.  Closed   shop  agreements  criminal.     Francis  Adams,    igp.    191 1. 

No.  24.  To    organized    labor,    greeting.     John    Kirby,   Jr.     2op.    1912. 

tNo.  26.  Open    and    closed    shop    material    for   debaters.     i38p.    19 12. 

No.   31.  Tlirottling    the    nation's    press.     sSp.    19 12. 

No.   32.  The  wages  of  tolerance.    John  Kirby,  Jr.   2op.    19 12. 

No.  35.  Political    activities    of    the    manufacturers.      James    A.    Emery. 
i8p.  1912. 

No.   44.  The   workman   behind   the   army.     Walter   Drew.     lop.    19 16. 

No.  45.  Closer    cooperation    among    employers.     2op.      19 16. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  liii 

No.  47.      The    onward    march    of   the   open   shop.     24P.     1920. 
tNo.  48.      Why   the   open   shop.     8p.     1921. 

tNo.  49.      The    open    or    closed   shop.     Walter    Drew.     24P.     192 1. 
tNo.  50.      How  the   open  shop  brings  prosperity.     Noel  Sargent.     24P. 
1922. 

tNo.  51.      Building    and    the   public.     Walter   Drew.     24P.    1922. 
National   Association  of   Manufacturers.   Proceedings.    1920. 
p.    191-202.     The   closed  shop  press.     E.  J.   McCone. 

National  Open  Shop  Publicity  Bureau.  The  restriction  of  out- 
put in  the  closed  shop;  facts  for  the  man  who  is  going  to 
build.  Extracts  from  the  eleventh  special  report  of  U.  S. 
Commissioner  of  Labor. 

Roosevelt,  Theodore.  Message  to  Congress.  D.  6,  1904. 

*Special  Panama  Canal  Commission.  Report  to  the  Secretary  of 
War.   Government   Printing  Office.    1922. 
p.    12-13,  40-i»  53-  Open  shop  policy. 

*U.  S.  Industrial  Commission.  17:86-7.  1901.  Oath  of  Inter- 
national Typographical  Union. 


Pamphlets  advocating  the  open  shop  may  be  obtained  from : 
Associated    Employers    of    Indianapolis,    1406    Merchants    Bank 

Bldg.,  Indianapolis,  Ind.  Andrew  J.  Allen,  Secretary. 
Board  of  Commerce,  Little  Rock,  Ark. 
Dallas  Chamber  of  Commerce.  Dallas,  Tex. 
Hudson  County  Open  Shop  League.  76  Montgomery  St.,  Jersey 

City,  N.  J.  George  C.  Hullen,   Secretary. 
League   for   Industrial   Rights,   42   Broadway,    New    York   City. 

Laurence  F.  Sherman,  Executive  Secretary. 
National   Association    of    Manufacturers,    50    Church    St.,    New 

York  City.  Noel  Sargent,  Manager  Open  Shop  Department. 
National  Erectors  Association,  286  Fifth  Ave.,  New  York  City. 

Walter  Drew,  Counsel. 
National   Founders   Association,    Room   842,   29   S.   LaSalle   St., 

Chicago,  111. 
National    Metal    Trades    Association,    1021    Peoples    Gas    Bldg., 

Chicago,  111. 


The  following  periodicals  contain  frequent  articles  supporting 
the  open  shop : 

American  Industries,  (monthly),  National  Association  of  Manu- 
facturers, 50  Church  St.,  New  York  City. 

Buffalo  Commercial,    (daily),   Buffalo,  N.Y. 

Employer,  (monthly),  Tulsa,  Okla. 

Eye  Opener,  (published  occasionally),  Open  Shop  Association  of 
the  Dallas  Chamber  of  Commerce.  Dallas,  Tex. 


liv  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Fidelity,  (about  monthly  since  D.  1918),  Actors'  Fidelity 
League,   122  West  43d  St.,  New  York  City. 

Industry,    (bi-monthly),  Wilkins  Bldg.,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Iron  Age,   (weekly),  239  West  39th  St.,  New  York  City. 

Iron  Trade  Review,  (weekly),  East  12th  and  Chestnut  Sts., 
Cleveland,    O. 

Law  and  Labor,  (monthly).  League  for  Industrial  Rights,  42 
Broadway,  New  York  City. 

Manufacturers'  News,  (weekly),  76  W.  Monroe  St.,  Chicago, 
111. 

Manufacturers'   Record,    (weekly),   Baltimore,   Md. 

New  Sky  Line,  (weekly).  Builders'  Exchange,  Little  Rock,  Ark. 

Open  Shop  Review,  (monthly),  National  Founders'  Associa- 
tion and  National  Metal  Trades  Association,  Room  716,  29  S. 
LaSalle  St.,  Chicago,  111. 

Periodicals 

Albany  Law  Journal.    66:366-7.     D.     '04.     The  closed  shop. 

illegal. 
Albany  Law  Journal.     67:346-7.     D.     '05.     The  illegality  of  the 

closed  shop. 
American   Economic  Association.     Publications.     3d  series.     4: 

183-9.  F.  '03.     Free  shops  for  free  men.  William  H.  Pfahler. 
American   Economic     Association.   Publications.     3d   series.     6: 

178-94.     F.     '05.     Necessity  of  the  open  shop;  an  employer's 

view.     John  D.   Hibbard. 
American  Industries.    4:  D.     i.  '04.     Make  the  change  now;  an 

open  shop  or  none.     C.  W.  Post. 
American  Industries.     6:13.     Ag.  15,  '07.     Telegraphers'  strike; 

the  closed  shop  the  real  issue. 
American  Industries.    6:6.    S.    i, '07.    How  Washington  secured 

the  open  shop.  Walter  Drew. 
American  Industries.    6:13-14.    S.  15,  '07.    The  closed  shop  and 

the   public.     Walter   Drew. 
American    Industries.     6:28-9.      N.      i,    '07.      Ideal    open    shop 

community.     E.  C.  Howland. 
American   Industries.     6:18.     N.   15,   '07.     Open   shop  principles 

established   in   Pittsburgh.     E.    C.   Howland. 
American   Industries.     6:13-14.     Ja.     i,   '08.     Los   Angeles   and 

the   open   shop.     Harrison   G.   Otis. 
American    Industries.      9:5-7.      Ap.      15,    '09.      Open    shop— its 

success. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  Iv 

American  Industries.     9 :8,     Ap.     15,  '09.     Open  vs.  the  closed 

shop.     John  Kirby,  Jr. 
American  Industries.    9:14-15.    My.     i,  '09.     Providence,  a  free 

city. 
American    Industries.      9 :6-7.      My.      15,    '09.      Open    shop — its 

success. 
American  Industries.    9:12.    Jl.    i,  '09.    Open  shop;  the  employ- 
ers' duty.    A.  C.  Marshall. 
American    Industries.    9:18-19.     Ag.    i,    '09.     The    open    shop — 

its  success. 
American  Industries.     10:7-9.     Ag.     15,  '09.     The  Government 

Printing  Office  and  the  union.     Chas.  P.  Rhodes. 
American    Industries.      10:27.      S.      15,    '09.      Demand    for    the 

open  shop.     Phillip  Frankel. 
American   Industries.     10:27,   46-7.     My.     '10;   27-8.     Je.     '10. 

What  does  the  closed  shop  mean  to  you?     John  Kirby,  Jr. 
American    Industries.      11:5-8.      Ag.      '10.      Buck's    Stove    and 

Range  case. 
American  Industries.     11:10-11,  47.     Ag.     '10.     Open  door  for 

American  workmen.     John   Kirby,  Jr. 
American  Industries.    11 :20-2.    Ag.    '10.    Open  or  closed  shop — 

which?     Walter  Drew. 
American   Industries.     11:19-20.     S.     '10.     Closed   shop   agree- 
ments  unlawful.     John   W.    Goff. 
American   Industries.     11:14-16.     Ja.     '11.     Industrial   freedom 

vs.  the  closed  shop. 
American  Industries.     11:21-2.     F.     '11.     San  Francisco  or  the 

closed   shop.     Frederick  Palmer. 
American    Industries.      12:25-7.     S.     '11.     Working   under   the 

open  shop. 
American  Industries.     12:17-19.     Ja.     '12.     Plow  the  open  shop 

has  benefited   Los  Angeles.     C.  W.   Burton. 
American  Industries     12:10-13.     F.     '12.     San  Francisco  of  the 

closed  shop.     G.  W.  Burton. 
American  Industries.     12:32.     Jl.     '12.     Closed   and  open  shop 

in  printing.     P.  E.  Werner. 
American  Industries.     14:7-9.     F.     '14.     What  employers  stand 

for.     James  A.  Emery. 
American  Industries.    15:15-17.    Ja.  '15.    Federal  Industrial  Re- 
lations Commission  report.    Walter  Drew. 
American  Industries.     15:11-12.     Mr.  '15.     Closed  shop  clauses 

in  building  contracts.     Walter  Drew. 


Ivi  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

American    Industries.     17:32-3.     Mr.     '17.     Strike,    the    lock-out 

and  the  neutral  citizen.     Walter  Drew. 
American    Industries.     18:24.     D.     '17.     War  contracts   and   the 

open  shop.     Walter  Drew. 
*American  Industries.     18:11-12.     Ja.     '18.     The  Supreme  court 

and  the  open  shop.    James  A.  Emery. 
American   Industries.     19:12-13.     Ag.     '18.     Winning  the   war 

with  the  open  shop. 
American  Industries.     20:15.     O.     '19.     Chairman  Gary's  letter 

to  subsidiary  companies. 
American  Industries.    20:31-2.    Ja.     '20.     Menace  of  the  closed 

shop.     E.  H.  Gary. 
American  Industries.    20:32-3.     Ap.     '20.     Collective  bargaining 

and  the  closed  shop.     William  McCarroll. 
American  Industries.    20:31-2.    Je.    '20.    Open  shop  needed  for 

industrial  welfare.     G.  W.  Dyer. 
American  Industries.     20:37-8.     Je.     '20.     Farmer  and  the  open 

shop.     Milo  D,  Campbell. 
American    Industries.    20:40-1.    Jl.    '20.     Closed    shop   press   in 

America.     E.  J.   McCone. 
American  Industries.  21 :23-4.  Ag.  '20.  The  closed  shop  or  the 

republic.     H.  M.  Nimmo. 
American  Industries.    21 :2i-2.     S.     '20.     Montana  an  open  shop 

state.    John  H.  Mcintosh. 
American    Industries.      21 :9-io.      O.      '20.      Opposed    to    closed 

shop  railroads.     Orra  L,  Stone. 
American  Industries.     21 :26-8.     O.     '20.     The  open  shop  a  na- 
tional demand.     Michael  J.  Hickey. 
American  Industries.    21 :22.    Ja.    *2i.    The  open  shop. 
American  Industries.  21 :30.  Mr.  '21.  Open  shop  a  movement  for 

freedom. 
American  Industries.  22:27-8.  O.  '21.  San  Francisco  turns  open 

shop.  William  C.  Wren. 
American  Machinist.  53 :476.   S.  2,  '20.  The  shipping  board  de- 
clares for  the  open  shop. 
American  Machinist.  53  :652a.  S.  30,  '20.  What  the  open  shop  plan 

of  employment  means  to  the  American  people. 
Annalist.     16:646.     N.     22,  '20.     The  open  shop  most  important 

of    industrial    questions.      William    H.    Barr. 
Annals  of  The  American  Academy.    25:517-20.    My.    '06.  Fallacy 

of  the  closed  shop.     George  H.  Ellis. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  Ivii 

Annals    of    the    American    Academy.    82:124-34.    Mr.    '19.    How 

American  manufacturers  view  employment  relations.  Stephen 

C.  Mason. 
Annals  of  the  American  Academy.    85 :2I4-I9.     S.    '19.    Organi- 
zation of  an   open  shop  under  the  Midvale  plan.     Edward 

Wilson. 
Atlantic  Monthly.  94:433-9.  O.  '04.  The  closed  shop.  Charles  J. 

Bullock. 
Atlantic  Monthly.     112:444-53.    O,    '13.    Monopoly  of  labor.    J. 

Laurence  Laughlin. 
Brooklyn  Daily  Eagle.  N.  28,  '20.  Capital  vs.  labor  conflict  near 

crisis.   Show-down   inevitable,     say   employers.     Edward     A. 

Ruhfel. 
Building     Age.     41 :398-9.     D.  '19.  Seattle     declares     the     open 

shop.     F.  R.  Singleton. 
Business  Chronicle.     7:25-7.     Je.     '14.     The  un-American  closed 

shop  must  go.    Edwin  Selvin. 
Columbia    University    Studies.      74:417-545.      1917.      Collective 

bargaining  in  the  lithographic  industry.    Henry  E.  Hoagland. 

p.  507-22.      Open   shop  established. 

P-  523-37.      Maintenance  of    open   shops. 

Commercial  and  Financial  Chronicle.    80:136.    Ja.    14,  '05.    Open 
and  closed  shop. 

Commercial    and    Financial    Chronicle.      109:1642-4.      N.    i,    '19. 
The  principle  of  the  open  shop, — the  right  to  quit  work. 

Commercial    and   Financial    Chronicle.     109:1950-1.     N.     22,   '19. 
W.  H.  Barr  on  dangers  to  commerce  of  closed  shop. 

Current  History.  14:795-802.  Ag.  '21.  How  trade  unions  are  ruin- 
ing British  industry.  J.  Ellis  Barker. 

Current    Literature.      51:654-6.      D.      '11.       The    questionable 
methods  of  trade  unionism. 

Current    Opinion.     69:248-50.'    Ag.    '20.     A    tale    of    two    cities 
and  the  open  shop. 

Dixie.    20:40-5.    My.    '04.     Present  crusade  for  the  closed  shop 
is  war  upon  society.     Chas.  Quarles. 

Editorial   Review.     6:526-33.     Je.     '12.     Clpsed   shop   unionism. 
Anthony  Ittner. 

Employer.   4:13,  26.    Ja.  '20.    City  of  Tulsa  is  pioneer  in  move- 
ment for  the  open  shop  idea.    Harry  V.  Kahle. 

Employer.     4:20,  25.     Ja.     '20.     Labor  demands  a  partnership 
in  business  but  declines  responsibility.     Richard  L.  Jones. 


Iviii  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Employer.  4:9,  26.  Mr.  '20.  Union  officials  attempt  to  trick 
the  Oklahoma  public.     Charles  E.  Hall, 

Employer.  4:10-11.  Mr.  '20.  How  labor's  autocracy  ran  out 
of  bounds  fifteen  years  ago.     I.  F.  Marcosson. 

Employer.  4:6-7,  9.  Jl.  '20.  State  labor  board  a  failure  in 
open  shop  fight. 

Employer.  4:11-13.  Jl.  '20.  Open  shop  means  justice  and  em- 
ployment to  all.     Harry  V.  Kahle. 

Employer.  5:11,  23.  S.  '20.  The  closed  shop  or  the  republic. 
H.  W.  Nimmo. 

Employer.  5:607,  18.  N.  '20.  Unionized  police  force  a  public 
menace. 

Employing  Printers  Association  of  America.  Bulletin.  Mr.  25,  '22. 
Digging  down  to  the  taproot  of  the  trouble. 

Engineering  and  Contracting.  54:142.  Ag.  11,  '20.  How  the 
Seattle  plan  for  prevention  of  labor  troubles  has  worked. 
F.  R.  Singleton. 

Engineering  Magazine.  33 :529-36.  Jl.  '07.  True  meaning  of 
the  open  shop.    James  W.  Van  Cleave. 

Engineering  Magazine.  46:566-70.  Ja.  '14.  Short  sighted 
methods  in  dealing  with  labor.     C.  J.  Morrison. 

Factory.  26:1190.  My.  15,  '21.  Open  shop  or  closed  shop,  which? 
Wilham  L.  Stoddard. 

Finance  and  Industry.  43:10.  F.  19,  '21.  How  open  shop  move- 
ment developed. 

Finance  and  Industry.  43:15-1-50.  F,  19,  '21.  Why  the  public  reacts 
against  unions. 

Finance  and  Industry.  43:31+57.  F.  19,  '21.  Reasons  why  Pitts- 
burgh stays  open  shop. 

Finance  and  Industry.  43:32-3.  F.  19,  '21.  Closed  union  shop 
termed  .uneconomic. 

Finance  and  Industry.  43:48.  F.  19,  '21.  Union  restriction  of  pro- 
duction. 

Finance  and  Industry.  43:80-1.  F.  19,  '21.  American  plan  proves 
success  in  Toledo. 

Finance  and  Industry.  44:19-20.  My.  6,  '22.  Baker  defines  prin- 
ciple of  open  shop. 

Forbes,  7:254.  Ja.  22,  '21.  The  closed  shop  or  open  shop — 
which?     Elbert  Hubbard. 

Forum.     62:513-29,  611-20.     D.  '19.     Closed  shop — to  the  bar. 

Government.  2 :383-93.  Mr.  '08.  Closed  shop  unionism.  Walter 
Drew. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  lix 

Green  Bag.  17:21-9.  Ja.  '05.  Maintenance  of  the  open  shop. 
Bruce  Wyman. 

Gunton.    21 :277-8.    S.  '01.    Exclusive  employment  of  union  men. 

Gunton.  25:102-9.  Ag.  '03.  The  union  versus  the  open  shop. 
George  Gunton. 

Hampton's  Magazine.  26:29-44.  Ja.  '11.  Otistown  of  the  open 
shop.     Frederick  Palmer. 

Hampton's  Magazine.  26:217-30.  F.  '11.  San  Francisco  of  the 
closed  shop.     Frederick  Palmer. 

Harper's  Monthly.  110:528-33.  Mr.  '05.  Employers'  policies  in  the 
industrial  strife.  Charles  W.  Eliot. 

Independent.     53:2128-30.     S.  5,  *oi.     Wherein  they   fail. 

Independent.  55 :230i.  S.  24,  '03.     The  Miller  case. 

Independent.  68:1112-15.  My  26,  '10.  The  employer  and  the 
labor  union.     Marcus  M.  Marks. 

Industrial  Digest,  i  :3.  Jl.  24,  '20.  Closed  shop  and  employ- 
ment management. 

Industrial  Digest,     i  :2.    O,  2,  '20.    Closed  shop  unlawful. 

Industrial  Digest.  1:1.  O.  30,  '20.  Inefficient  labor  hampers 
car  repair  work. 

Industrial  Digest.     1:1.    N.  20,  '20.    Organized  labor  on  the  run, 

Industral  Digest.     i:i.     D.  4,  '20.     Open  shop  cuts  strikes  losses. 

Industrial  Digest,  i  :652-3,  688.  Mr.  18,  '22.  Making  the  labor 
union  responsible  for  production.  T.   M.  Ave-Lallemant. 

Industry.    2:13-15.    S.  i,  '20.    Open  versus  the  closed  shop. 

Industry.  2:1.  S.  15,  '20.  What  the  open  shop  plan  of  employ- 
ment means  to  the  American  people. 

Industry.  2 :7-9.  S.  15,  '20.  The  open  shop  policy  on  the  rail- 
roads must  be  maintained. 

Industry.  2:1.  O.  i,  '20.  The  American  people  and  the  closed 
shop. 

Industry.  2 :6-7.  O.  i,  '20.  The  right  to  earn  an  honest  living 
without  restriction.     Henry  H.  Lewis. 

Industry.  2:8-9.  O.  i,  '20.  Declaration  of  principles  of  Pad- 
ucah  industries. 

♦Industry.  2:10.  O.  i,  '20.  The  open  shop  versus  the  closed 
shop.     Rev.  F.  E.  Johnson. 

Industry.  2:11.  O.  i,  '20.  The  national  grange  approves  the 
open  shop. 

Industry.     2:12-13.     O.  i,  '20.     The  open  shop  in  Philadelphia. 

Industry.     2:13.     O.  i,  '20.     The  open  shop  in  Hartford. 


Ix  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Industry.    2:5-6.     O.  15,  '20.    An  open  letter  to  the  members  of 

the  American  Bankers  Association. 
Industry.     2:8-11.      O.    15,    '20.     Where   the    American    farmer 

stands  on  the  open  shop  issue. 
Industry.     2:11.     O.    15,   '20.     Declaration   of  principles   of  the 

Associated  Employers  of  Utica,  N.Y. 
Industry.     2:12.     O.   15,  '20.     A  survey  of  open  shop  progress. 

Indianapolis  and  the  open  shop. 
Paying  the  penalty  for  the  closed 


Industry. 

2:13.     0.  15,  '20. 

Industry. 

2:5-6.     N.  I,  '20. 

shop. 

Industry. 

2:6.     N.  I,  '20. 

American  Bankers  Association  and 
the  open  shop. 

Industry.  2:7.  N.  i,  '20.  Why  the  open  shop  benefits  the 
community. 

Industry.    2 :8.    N.  i,  '20.    Patterson  and  the  open  shop. 

Industry.  2:9.  N.  i,  '20.    The  open  shop  in  Dayton. 

Industry.  2:8-10.  N.  15,  '20.  A  personal  word  with  the  mem- 
bers of  the  National   Catholic  Welfare  Council. 

Industry.  3 :5-6.  D.  i,  '20.  The  national  grange  resolves  in  fa- 
vor of  the  open  shop  plan  of  employment. 

Industry.  3:7-8.  D.  i,  '20.  The  New  York  World  versus  Wil- 
liam H.  Barr. 

flndustry.  3:2-5.  Ja.  i,  '21.  The  great  open  shop  "conspiracy." 
Henry  H.  Lewis. 

Iron  Age.  72:29-32.  O.  29,  '03.  Open  shop.    Henry  C.  Hunter. 

*Iron  Age.  100:916.  O.  11,  '17.  Closed  or  open  shop.  Walter 
Drew. 

Iron  Age.  105:131.  Ja.  8,  '20.    Fighting  the  closed  shop. 

Iron  Age.  105:1532-3.  My.  27,  '20.  Closed  versus  open  shop 
discussion. 

tron  Age.  106:1606-8.  D.  16,  '20.  Closed  shop  principles  para- 
mount.   James  A.   Emery. 

Iron  Age.  106:1671-3.  D.  23,  '20.  Steel  men  support  open  shop 
policy. 

Iron  Age.   106:1683.  D.  23,  '20.  Why  union  labor  is  opposed. 

Iron   Age.    107:644.   Mr.    10,   '21.  Union  and  open  shop  results. 

Iron  Age.  108:416.  Ag.  18,  '21.  Competition  and  the  open  shop. 

Iron  Age  109:1106.  Ap.  20,  '22.  Chairman  Gary  gives  his  views 
on  labor  questions  and  business  conditions. 

Iron  Trade  f^eview.  57:i43-7.  Jl-  I5,  'i5-  Detroit's  great 
growth  due  to  its  open  skop  policy.    L.  W.  Moffett. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  Ixi 

Iron  Trade  Review.  65  :844-5.  S.  25,  '19.  Piez  declares  for  open 

shop. 
Iron  Trade  Review.  65  :997-9.  O.  9,  '19.  Open  shop  essential  to 

properity. 
Iron  Trade  Review.  65:1192-3  O.  30,    '19.    Labor    seeks    union 

domination:  open  shop  in  focal  point  of  labor  problem.  E. 

H.   Gary. 
Iron  Trade  Review.  65:1194.  O.  30,  '19.   Institute  indorses  the 

open  shop. 
Iron  Trade  Review.  66:1487.  My.  20,  '20.  Favors  works  councils. 

Herbert  Hoover  before  Senate  hearing  advocates  open  shop. 
Iron  Trade  Review.  67 :388-9.  Ag.  5,  '20.  Chambers  adopt  labor 

policy. 
Iron  Trade  Review.  67:505.  Ag.   19,  '20.     Trade  unionism  halts 

building, 
flron  Trade  Review.  67  :505-8.  Ag.  19,  '20.  Public  rebels  against 

closed  shop. 
Iron  Trade  Review.  67:571-4.  Ag.  26,  '20.  Detroit  vindicates  open 

shop. 
Iron  Trade  Review.  67  '.ySy-g.  S.   16,  '20.  Open  shop  gaining  in 

the  south, 
flron  Trade  Review.  67:846-52.  S.  23,  '20.   Nation  swinging  to 

open  shop.    A.  J.  Hain. 
Iron  Trade  Review.  67:1071-6.  O.  14,  '20.  Employees  uphold  the 

open  shop, 
flron  Trade   Review.   67:1152-3.   O.   21,   '20.   High  costs   due   to 

closed  shop.  Cleveland  Chamber  of  Commerce. 
Iron  Trade  Review.  67:1264-5.  N.  4,  '20.  Cleveland  in  the  open 

shop  ranks. 
Iron  Trade   Review.  67:1312.   N.    11,   '20.   Where  will   the   open 

shop  lead? 
Iron  Trade  Review.  67:1339-45,  1348.  N.  11,  '20.  Indorse  Ameri- 
can plan  league. 
Iron   Trade   Review.   67:1464-5.   N.   25,   '20.   Open   shop   reduces 

strike  losses. 
Iron  Trade  Review.  67:1734-5.  D.  23,  '20.  Government  demands 

open  shop. 

Iron  Trade  Review.  68:762-8.  Mr.  17,  '21.  Twin  cities  team  for 
open  shop. 

Iron  Trade  Review.  68:1185.  Ap.  28,  '21.  Foundries  declare  for 
open  shop. 


Ixii  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Journal  of  Political  Economy.  13:172-200.  Mr.  '05.  Present 
legal  status  of  organized  labor  in  the  United  States.  Lind- 

■       ley  D.  Clark. 

Journal  of  Political  Economy.  13:593-7-  S.  '05.  Two  decisions 
relating  to  organized  labor.    S.   P.   Breckinridge. 

Labor  American.  2:9-10.  D.  '20.  The  closed  shop  or  the  repub- 
lic.   H.  M.  Nimmo. 

Law  and  Labor,  i  :8-9.  F.  '19.  Combinations  of  employers  to 
maintain  the  open  shop  or  to  refuse  to  employ  union  men 
are  lawful. 

Law  and  Labor,  i  :g.  Je.  '19.  The  law  of  Georgia  will  protect 
the  open  shop  contract. 

Law  and  Labor.  1:12.  S.  '19.  Bill  against  the  closed  shop. 
(Alabama). 

Law  and  Labor,  i  '.26-7.  D.  '19.  Fighting  for  the  open  shop 
in   Massachusetts. 

Law  and  Labor.  2:170-3.  Jl.  '20.  Amalgamated  clothing  work- 
ers enjoined  for  unlawful  conduct  of  closed  shop  strike. 

Law  and  Labor.  3:34.  F.  '21.  Individual  non-union  contracts 
do  not  violate  the  public  policy  of  Tennessee. 

Law  and  Labor.  3:52.  Mr.  '21.  The  industrial  opiate. 

Law  and  Labor.  3  '.78.  Ap.  '21.  The  dominant  issue — is  it  under- 
stood? 

Law  and  Labor.  3:93.  Ap.  '21.  Secondary  boycott  boomerangs 
on  the  closed  shop. 

Law  and  Labor.  3:119.  My.  '21.  An  agreement  between  a  con- 
tractors' association  and  a  union  to  employ  and  to  work  for 
each  other's   members   exclusively  is   unlawful. 

Law  and  Labor.  3:182.  Ag.  '21.  When  monopoly  appears  equality 
of  bargaining  power  vanishes. 

Law  and  Labor.  3:188-90.  Ag,  '21.  Strike  for  the  closed  shop  in 
Texas  unlawful. 

Law  and  Labor.  3 :236-9.  S.  '21.  No  labor  organization  in  any 
shop  has  the  right  to  demand  and  insist  that  each,  every, 
and  all  employees  shall  join  the  union. 

Law  and  Labor.  3:259-60.  N.  '21.  Strike  to  establish  a  closed 
shop  in  Massachusetts  enjoined. 

Law  and  Labor.  4:22-3.  Ja.  '22.  All  picketing  during  a  strike 
for  a  closed  shop  enjoined  in  New  Jersey. 

Literary  Digest.  27:126,  Ag.  i,  '03.  The  President  and  the  labor 
union. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  Ixiii 

Manufacturer.  18:11-12.  D.  15,  '05.  Open  shop  and  no  mon- 
opoly. 

Manufacturers'  Record.  60:61-2,  N.  9,  '11.  Employers  and  the 
closed  shop.    Daniel  T.  Pierce. 

Manufacturers'  Record.  62:49-50.  Je.  27,  '12.  Open  shop  city: 
how  Tampa  handles  its  labor  problems. 

Manufacturer'  Record.  79:103.  Ja.  20,  '21.  Open  shop  move- 
ment pledged  support  by  National  Conference  of  State  Manu- 
facturers' Associations. 

Nation.  79:46-7.  Jl.    21,    '04.     The  law  of  the  closed  shop. 

Nation.  82:29.  Ja.  11,  '06.    The  printers'  strike. 

Nation.  82:254.  Mr.  29,  '06.    Labor's  impossible  demands. 

*Nation's  Business.  8:18.  Je.  '20.  Case  for  the  open  shop.  John 
W.  O'Leary. 

Nation's  Business.  8:20.  Jl.  '20.  Business  to  take  stand  on  la- 
bor. 

Nation's  Business.  8:16-17.  S.  '20.  A  stand  on  labor  prin- 
ciples. 

National  Corporation  Reporter.  31 :367.  N.  2,  '05.  Judge  Hol- 
dom  on  closed  shop  and  the  right  of  picketing :  A  clear  cut 
deliverance. 

National  Corporation  Reporter.  33:165-6.  S.  27,  '06.  The  open 
shop  before  the  law. 

New  Republic.  25  :375.  F.  23,  '21.  National  Association  of  Manu- 
facturers puts  some  questions. 

New  Sky  Line.  1:1.  F.  28,  '20.  Open  shop  versus  union  bar- 
gaining. 

New  Sky  Line.  1:1.  Mr.  6,  '20.    Organized  but  not  unionized. 

New  Sky  Line,  l  :2.  Mr.  6,  '20.    Union  reasoning. 

New  Sky  Line,   i  :2.  Mr.  6,  '20.    It  is  time. 

New  Sky  Line,  i  :3.  Mr.  6,  '20.  The  closed  shop — the  un-Amer- 
ican plan. 

New  Sky  Line.  1 14.  Mr.  13,  '20.  The  closed  shop  an  un- 
American  policy. 

New  Sky  Line,   i  :i.    Mr.  27,  '20.    Closed  shop  and  radicalism. 

New  Sky  Line.    1 13.    Mr.  27,  '20.    Why  the  closed  shop. 

New  Sky  Line,  i  :2.     My.  22,  '20.     A  new  turn  in  the  courts. 

New  Sky  Line,  i  :3.  My.  22,  '20.  Railroad  unions  and  open 
shop. 

New  Sky  Line,  i  :2.  My.  29,  '20.  The  great  trouble  with  the 
unions  and  the  closed  shop  policy. 


Ixiv  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

New  Sky  Line,  i  :i.  Je.  5,  '20.  The  opening  wedge  for  the 
open  shop. 

New  Sky  Line,  i  :i.  Je.  26,  '20.     The  reaction  setting  in. 

New  Sky  Line,  i  :2.  Je.  26,  '20.  The  vicious  phase  of  union- 
ism. 

New  Sky  Line,   i  :3.  Je.  26,  '20.    Convincing  influences. 

New  Sky  Line,  i  :i.  Jl.  3,  '20.    The  workers  want  it  all. 

New  Sky  Line.  1:1.  Jl.  24,  '20.  Open  shop  and  closed  shop, — 
the  difference. 

New  Sky  Line,   i  :3.  Jl.  24,  '20.    A  closed  shop  blessing. 

New  Sky  Line.  1:1.  Ag.  7,  '20.  The  closed  shop  destroying  la- 
bor unionism. 

New  Sky  Line,  i  :2.  Ag.  7,  '20.     The  closed  shop  and  politics. 

New  Sky  Line.  1 13.  Ag.  7,  '20.  To  stage  fight  against  the  open 
shop. 

New  Sky  Line.  1 13-4.  Ag.  21,  '20.  Interpreting  closed  shop 
allegiance. 

New  Sky  Line,  i  '.3.  Ag.  28,  '20.  Former  union  man  dis- 
cusses open  shop. 

New  Sky  Line.    1:1.    S.  4,  '20.    The  bolshevik  spirit. 

New  Sky  Line.     1 14.     S.  4,  '20.     Why  the  closed  shop  strength. 

New  Sky  Line.  1:4.  S.  11,  '20.  The  politician  and  the  open 
shop. 

New  Sky  Line.  1:1.  S.  18,  '20.  How  the  closed  shop  operates 
against  the  public. 

Mew  Sky  Line.  1:1.  S.  25.  '20.  American  plan  of  employ- 
ment. 

New  Sky  Line,  i  :3-4.  S.  25,  '20.  The  viewpoint  of  closed  shop 
leaders. 

New  Sky  Line,  i  :i.  O.  2,  '20.  Demands  of  the  Denver  street 
railway  employees. 

New  Sky  Line.     1:1.     O.  2,  '20.     The  open  shop  growth. 

New  Sky  Line,  i  -.3.  O.  2,  '20.  Sample  of  democracy  in 
unionism. 

New  Sky  Line,  i  :i.  O.  9,  '20.  The  only  declaration  of  inde- 
pendence   which    can    save    America. 

New  Sky  Line,     i  -.3.    O.  9,  '20.    The  open  shop  a  business  boost. 

New  Sky  Line.     1:1.     O.   16,  '20.     The  changing  times. 

New  Sky  Line,  i  '.3.  O.  23,  '20.  Special  report  on  the  Seattle 
struggle. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  Ixv 

New   Sky  Line,     i  :3.     O.  30,   '20.     Strikes  to  prevent  employ- 
ment  of   non-union   labor    declared    unlawful — injunction    to 
be  issued. 
New  Sky  Line.     1 14.     O.  30,  '20.     Irresistibly  for  open  shop. 
New  Sky  Line.     1:1,  3.     N.  6,  '20.     Union  accountability. 
New  Sky  Line.     1 13-4.     N.  6,  '20.     How  Seattle  won  the  open 

shop. 
New    Sky  Line.      1:1,   3-4.     N.    13,    '20.     Some   iniquity  of   the 

closed  shop. 
New  Sky  Line.     1 14.    N.  20,  '20.    Open  shop  matters  in  Buffalo. 
New  Sky  Line.    1:1.    N.  27,  '20.    Closed  shop  a  curse  to  building 

construction  in  Cleveland. 
New  Sky  Line,     i  :3.-   D.  4,  '20.    The  closed  shop. 
New  Sky  Line.    1:3.    D.  11,  '20.    Proposed  open  shop  legislation. 
New  Sky  Line,   i  '.4.  F.   12,  '21.  The  closed  shop  undermines  a 

workman's  conscience. 
New  Sky  Line.  Ap.  23,  '21.  Open  shop  a  natural  privilege. 
New   Sky   Line.   2:8.    My.    21,   '21.    Public   against   closed    shop, 

says  rabbi. 
*New  Sky  Line.  2:8.  My.  21,  '21.  Two  indictments  against  the 

closed  shop. 
New   Sky  Line.  2:3.  O.   i,   '21.  Organized  labor  and  the  open 

shop. 
New  Sky  Line.     2:1.  O.  22,  '21.     What  do  you  think?  Open  shop 

has  proven  very  successful  in  Little  Rock. 
New  Sky  Line.  2:3.  O.  22,  '21.  A  right  to  work  law. 
New  Sky  Line.  2:1+7.  N.  6,  '21.  Open  shop  printing  establish- 
ments in  Little  Rock. 
New  Sky  Line.  2:2.  N.  26,  '21.  Open  shop  argument. 
New  Sky  Line.  2:1-3.  D.  10,  '21.  Open  shop  83.5  per  cent,  closed 

shop   16.5  per  cent. 
New  York  Department  of   Labor   Bulletin.     12:365-74.     S.   '10. 

Legality  of  strikes  for  the  closed  shop. 
New  York  Herald.  Ap.  2,  '22.  Closed  shop  held  to  violate  sacred 

pubHc  rights.  Walter  G.  Merritt. 
jNew  York  Times.  Wages  and  the  open  shop,    (editorial)   Ap. 
10,  '22. 

North  American  Review.  178:571-81.  Ap.  '04.  Industrial  lib- 
erty, not  industrial  anarchy.     Henry  L.  Nelson. 

North  American  Review.  180:28-40.  Ja.  '05.  Issue  of  the 
open  and  closed  shop.     Henry  White.  t,„-^ 


Ixvi  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

North  American  Review.  189:771-5.  My.  '09.  Crisis  in  union- 
ism.    Henry  WHite. 

North  American  Review.  195 :66-74.  Ja.  12.  Closed  shop. 
Walter  G.  Merritt. 

Open  Shop  Review.     4:328-37.     Jl.  '05.     Closed  shop. 

Open  Shop  Review.  5:115-8.  Mr.  '06.  Legal  aspects  and  ben- 
efits of  the  open  shop.     F.  C.  Nunemacher. 

Open  Shop  Review.  5:119-22.  Mr.  '06.  The  open  shop  and 
no  monopoly. 

Open  Shop  Review.  15 :465-77.  D.  '18.  Open  shop  necessary 
for  country's  prosperity.     William  H..  Barr. 

Open  Shop  Review.  16:80-3.  F.  '19.  New  York  harbor  work- 
ers' strike. 

Open  Shop  Review.  16:110-3.  Mr.  '19.  The  fallacy  of  less 
work  and  more  pay. 

Open  Shop  Review.  16:120-1.  Mr.  '19.  The  closed  shop  idea  of 
industrial  democracy. 

Open  Shop  Review.  16:145.  Ap.  '19.  Bolshevism  and  the 
closed  shop  union. 

Open  Shop  Review.  16:163-5.  Ap.  '19.  Labor  cannot  produce 
wealth  without  capital. 

Open  Shop  Review.  16:223-7.  Je.  '19.  Is  closed  shop  unionism 
the  same  as  bolshevism? 

Open  Shop  Review,     16:243-6.     Je.  '19.     The  right  to  work. 

Open  Shop  Review.  16:268-73.  Jl.  '19.  Unionism  and  bolshe- 
vism.   James  R.  Day. 

Open  Shop  Review.  16:288-91.  Jl.  '19.  Lessons  from  England's 
experience.     Walter  Drew. 

Open  Shop  Review.  16:302-5.  Ag.  '19.  Growing  menace  of 
the  un-American  closed  shop. 

Open  Shop  Review.     16:330-1.     Ag.  '19.     The  open  shop. 

Open  Shop  Review.  16:339-43.  S.  '19.  The  attack  upon  the 
steel   industry. 

Open  Shop  Review.  16:423-36.  N.  '19.  The  national  indus- 
trial conference. 

Open  Shop  Review.  16:455-61.  N.  '19.  Trade  unionism;  a 
constructive  criticism. 

Open  Shop  Review.  16:465-75.  D.  '19.  Industrial  success 
depends  upon  open  shop.     William  H.  Barr. 

Open  Shop  Review.  17:3-18.  Ja.  '20.  British  and  American 
labor  problems. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  Ixvii 

Open  Shop  Review.  17:45-62.  F.  '20.  Industrial  unrest. 
George  F.  Monaghan. 

Open  Shop  Review.     17:164.     Ap.  '20.     Danger  of  closed  shop. 

Open  Shop  Review.  17:189-90.  My.  '20.  Fair  to  unions,  unfair 
to  public. 

Open  Shop  Review.  17:213-24.  Je.  '20.  The  closed  shop  press. 
E.  J.  McCone. 

Open  Shop  Review.  17:292-4.  Jl.  '20.  The  closed  shop  is  op- 
posed to  human  development. 

Open  Shop  Review.  17:320-2.  Ag.  '20.  "Umbrella  Mike"  pulls 
one  man  strike.     Arthur  M.  Evans. 

Open  Shop  Review.  17:346-8.  S.  '20.  No  more  closed  shop 
here. 

Open  Shop  Review.  17:349-52.  S.  '20.  Open  shop  gets  endorse- 
ment of  U.  S.  Chamber  of  Commerce. 

Open  Shop  Review.  17:394-6.  O.  '20.  The  Brooklyn  rapid 
transit  strike. 

Open  Shop  Review.     17:397-8.    O.  '20.    Limitations  on  freedom. 

Open   Shop  Review.     17:415-17.     O.  '20.     The  coal  strike. 

Open  Shop  Review.  17:423-32.  N.  '20.  Americanism  in  in- 
dustry. 

Open  Shop  Review.    17:456-9.    N.  '20.    The  high  cost  of  strikes. 

Open  Shop  Review.  17:465-76.  D.  '20.  Open  shop  principle 
vital  to  United  States.     William  H.  Barr. 

Open  Shop  Review.  17:498-502.  D.  '20.  Why  the  open  shop 
campaign  is  successful.     William  H.  Barr. 

Open  Shop  Review.  18:3-4.  Ja.  '21.  Philosophy  of  the  closed 
shop  in  action.  J.  A.  Emery. 

Open  Shop  Review.  18:87-93.  Mr.  '21.  For  Americanism  in  the 
building  industry. 

Open  Shop  Review.  18:115-24.  Mr.  '21.  Open  shop  in  the 
southwest.  W.  S.  Mosher. 

Open  Shop  Review.  18:14.1-3.  Ap.  '21.  Union  lawlessness. 

Open  Shop  Review.  18:194-9.  My.  '21.  How  closed  shop  agree- 
ments affect  railroads.  St.  Louis  Chamber  of  Commerce. 

Open  Shop  Review.  18:238-43.  Je.  *2i.  Labor  policy  of  the  United 
States  Steel  Corporation.  Elbert  H.  Gary. 

Open  Shop  Review.  18:370-4.  S.  '21.  The  rebellion  in  West  Vir- 
ginia coal  fields. 

Open  Shop  Review.  18:403-11.  O.  '21.  Our  government  printing 
plant  on  open  shop  basis.  Thomas  L.  Blanton. 


Lxviii  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Open  Shop  Review.  18:426-8.  O.  '21.  Open  shops. 
Open  Shop  Review.  18:436.  O.  '21.  Under  the  closed  shop. 
Open  Shop  Review.  18:500.  D.  '21.  Open  shop  in  Canal  zone. 
Open  Shop  Review.   18:503-8.  D.  '21,  The  open  shop  in  Ameri- 
can industry.  William  H.  Barr. 
Open   Shop   Review,    18:508.   D.   '21.   Unemployment   greater  in 

cities  where  the  closed  shop  prevails. 
Open  Shop  Review.  18:529.  D.  '21.  Why  Dallas  adopted  the  open 

shop. 
Open  Shop  Review.  18:531.  D.  '21.  Workmen  demand  open  shop. 
Open  Shop  Review.  19 .22-2,.  Ja.  '22.  How  the  union  shop  throttles 

production. 
Open   Shop   Review.    19:23.   Ja.   '22.   Wealth  of   open   shop  Los 

Angeles. 
Open   Shop   Review.    19:26-35.   Ja.   '22.   A  warning  to   the   New 

York  building  trades  unions. 
Open  Shop  Review.  19:65-70.  F  '22.  Unemployment  and  the  open 

shop.  Noel  Sargent. 
Open    Shop    Review.    19:170-7.    Ap.    '22.    Man's    right    to    work 

unmolested. 
Open  Shop  Review.  19:197-213.  My.  '22.  West  Virginia  fights  for 

freedom.     E.  L.  Greever. 
Open  Shop  Review.  19:257.  Je.  '22.  The  menace  of  the  closed 

shop.     Charles  W.  Eliot. 
Open  Shop  Review.  19:264-5.  Je.  '22.  Newton  D.  Baker  on  the 

closed  shop. 
Open    Shop    Review.      19:266-77.    Je.    '22.    Union    terrorism    in 

Chicago. 
Open  Shop  Review.  19:306-7.  Jl.  '22.  Why  the  open  shop? 
Open   Shop  Review.   19 :3i2-i3.  Jl.  '22.   Comment. 
Open  Shop  Review.  19:315-22.  Jl.  '22.  Another  reason  why  the 

un-American  closed  shop  must  go. 
Open  Shop  Review.  19:339-59.  Ag.  '22.  The  Herrin  conspiracy. 
Oregon  Voter.    2:279+.    L),  i,  '17.    Practice  vs.  theory.  Thomas 

McCusker. 

A   reply   to    Prof.    Paul   H.    Douglas,    Oregon   Voter   for   November    3,. 
1917. 

Outlook.   74:771-2.  Ag.    I,   '03.  The  labor  issue   at  Washington. 

Outlook.  74:867-8.  Ag.  8,  '03.    The  bookbinders'  union  retreats. 

Outlook.  74:1009-10.  Ag.  29,  '03.  The  President  and  the  labor 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  lxix 

Outlook.  75:193.  S.  26,  '03.  Not  to  be  taken  seriously. 
Outlook.  75 :333-4.  O.   10,  '03.  The  Miller  case. 
Outlook.     77:630-4.     Jl.  16,  '04.     The  open  shop. 
Outlook.     82:51-2.     Ja.   13,  '06.     An  important  decision. 
Outlook.     100:359-67.     F.   17,  '12.     Terrorism  in  America.     W. 

V.  Woehlke. 
Outlook.      125:17-18.     My.   5,   '20.     Labor   and   the   open   shop. 

Miles  Poindexter. 
Overland   Monthly,   n.s.     51 :288-94.     Mr.    '08.     Harrison    Grey 

Otis  and  his  fight  for  the  open  shop.     A.  Holman. 
Pacific     Coast     Mechanic.     Ja.     '18.     Liberties     of     the     shop 

upheld  by  the  Supreme  court  of  the  United  States. 
fPubhc  Ledger   (Philadelphia).  Jl.  3,  '21.  Open  shop  sentiment 

shown  by  nation-wide  survey  to  be  growing. 

A   series   of   articles   showing  that   both    union    and   non-union    men   are 
employed  under  the   open  shop  in  various  parts  of  the  county.     Reprinted 
by    the    National    Association    of    Manufacturers    from    whom    it    may    be 
obtained. 
PubHc  Opinion.  35  :452-3.  O.  8,  '03.  The  President's  decision  in 

the  Miller  case. 
Public  Policy.     13  :268-7o.     D.  2,  '05.     Open  shop  sustained ;  the 

boycott  condemned ;   Opinion  of  Judge  J.   H.  Batty. 
Quarterly  Journal  of  Economics.     30:352-86.     F.  '16.     The  Na- 
tional  Founders'  Association.     M.   L.    Stecker. 
Quarterly  Review.    216:177-201.    Ja.  '12.     History  of  the  United 

States  Steel   Corporation.     Edward  Porritt. 
Railway  Age.     36:813-14.     D.    11,   '03.     The  open   shop.     T.   F. 

Woodlock. 
Railway   Age.     37:1136.     Je.    17,   '04.     Closed   shop   agreements 

declared  illegal  and  criminal. 
Railway  Age  Gazette.    48:1762.     Je.  23,  '10.     Shop  efficiency  and 

the  labor  union. 
Review.      1:473-4.      O.    11,    '19.     Principle    of    the    closed    shop. 

R.  F.  Cutting. 
Review  of   Reviews.     28:354-5.     S.   '03.     The  union  versus  the 

open  shop. 
Saturday  Evening  Post.     192:6-7,  46,  49-50.     Ja.  24,  '20.     Strike 

against  strikes ;  Open  shop  association  of  Beaumont,  Texas. 

George  Pattullo. 
Square  Deal.     5:141-3.     S.   '09.     National   Erectors   Association 

and   the   open   shop.     Walter   Drew. 


Ixx  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Square  Deal.     5:243-4-     O.  '09.     Benefits  of  the  open  shop. 

Square  Deal.  16:127-8.  Mr.  '15.  Closed  shop  or  open  shop. 

Square  Deal.  16:397-401.  Je.  '15.  To  rid  New  York  City  of  closed 
shop  sluggers. 

Sunset.     33:652.     O.  '14.     Renewing  the  open  shop  fight. 

Survey.    23 :587-8.    Ja.  29,  '10.    The  closed  shop.    R.  F.  Cutting. 

Survey.  27:1650-1.  Ja.  2.^,  '12.  Conservation  and  industrial 
war.    Everett  P.  Wheeler. 

Survey.  31 :524-5.  Ja.  31,  '14.  Trade  unions  and  the  law. 
Walter  G.  Merritt. 

Survey.  35702-3.  Mr.  11,  '16.  Open  and  closed  shop  in  the 
structural  iron  industry.     Walter  Drew. 

Survey.  35:705-6.  Mr.  11,  '16.  Open  shop  structural  iron 
workers. 

Survey.  37:716-17.  Mr.  24,  '17.  The  open  shop  in  San  Fran- 
cisco.    Robert  N.  Lynch. 

Survey.  43:57.  N.  8,  '19.  Open  shop;  excertps  from  address 
October  24,  before  American  Iron  and  Steel  Institute  in 
New  York.    E.  H.  Gary. 

University  of   Illinois   Studies.     6:234-52.     S.   '17.     Wage   bar- 
gaining on  the  vessels  of  the  great  lakes, 
p.  84-102.     Open  shop. 

Van  Norden.    4:200-3.    N. '08.    Attitude  of  National  Association 

of   Manufacturers   toward  J.   W.   Van   Cleave. 
Weekly  Review.     3:491-2.     N.  24,  '20.     Strike  insurance  and  the 

closed  shop. 
fWeekly  Review.  3  :636-7.  D.  29,  '20.  The  industrial  tug  of  war. 
Weekly   Review.   4:33-4.   Ja.    12,   '21.   The   open   shop   offensive. 

Ernest  G.  Draper. 
Weekly  Review.  4:78.  Ja.  26,  '21.  Labor  unions  and  the  closed 

shop.  Walter  Drew. 
Weekly  Review.  4:79.  Ja.  26,  '21.  Open  shop  defensive.  H.  H. 

Rice. 
Weekly  Review.  4:79.   Ja  26,   '21.   Wages  and  the  closed   shop. 

Murray  T.  Quigg. 
Weekly  Review.  4:244-5.  Mr.  16,  '21.  The  open  shop  campaign. 

Ernest  G.  Draper. 
World's   Work.     11:6955-65.     D.   '05.     The  fight   for  the   open 

shop.     Isaac  F.  Marcosson, 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  Ixxi 

World's    Work,      11:7242.      F.    '06.      A    fair-minded    open    shop 

employer.     John    A.   Hill. 
World's  Work.     14:9164.     Ag.  '07.     The  open  shop  campaign. 
World's    Work.     14:9164-5.     Ag.    '07.     The    open    shop — a    case 

in  point. 
World's    Work.      15 :9675-9.      D.    '07.      A    long    winning    fight 

against   the   closed   shop.     Harrison.    G.   Otis. 
World's    Work.     35:481-8.      Mr.    '18.      England    has    industrial 

peace — why  not  we?     B.  J.  Hendrick. 


THE   CLOSED   SHOP 


INTRODUCTION 

The  labor  problem  is  the  group  of  controversies  growing 
out  of  the  struggle  for  self  interest  between  the  employer  and 
the  employee  classes.  While  it  is  as  old  as  the  human  race,  it 
has  changed  and  developed  with  the  evolution  of  industrial  so- 
ciety. As  labor  has  become  more  intelligent  and  better  organ- 
ized, and  as  the  consolidation  of  industry  has  decreased  the 
competition  within  the  employer  class  and  resulted  in  better 
organization  and  greater  centralization,  the  conflicts  between 
these  two  classes,  both  the  open  industrial  warfare  and  the 
continuous  struggle  for  self  advantage,  have  been  conducted  on 
a  much  larger   scale  than  in  the   earlier  years. 

The  closed  union  shop  is  one  of  the  recent  phases  of  the 
labor  problem,  but  it  is  a  phase  that  is  difficult  to  isolate  and 
study  apart  by  itself.  An  even  greater  difficulty  confronts  the 
student  because  of  the  lack  of  agreement  among  writers  and 
speakers  upon  the  meaning  of  the  terms  "open  shop"  and 
"closed  shop"  to  say  nothing  of  the  vague  and  almost  meaning- 
less way  these  terms  are  sometimes  used  in  the  public  press 
and  the  confusion  found  in  some  of  the  pamphlets  and  leaflets 
that  have  recently  been   issued. 

A  closed  shop  is  one  in  which  an  agreement  .has  been  made 
between  the  employer  and  the  union  that  only  those  workers 
in  any  given  trade  will  be  given  employment  who  are  members 
in  good  standing  of  the  union  of  that  trade,  so  long  as  any 
such  persons  are  available.  It  is  in  the  nature  of  a  labor  monop- 
'oly,  and  it  is  generally  brought  about  by  compulsion.  On  the 
other  hand  it  is  not  true  that  the  only  qualification  for  employ- 
ment is  membership  in  the  union,  though  this  statement  will  be 
found  in  many  of  the  pamphlets  advocating  the  open  shop. 

The  open  shop  is  one  where  there  is  no  distinction,  prefer- 
ence, or  discrimination  either  for  or  against  any  individual 
workman  because  he  is  or  is  not  a  member  of  a  labor  union. 


2  SFLECTED   ARTICLES 

Such  an  institution  is  an  ideal,  rather  than  the  condition  which 
prevails  in  the  thousands  of  industrial  establishments  that  claim 
to  be  following  the  open  shop  plan.  The  open  shop  as  above 
defined  may  be  what  some  of  the  advocates  of  the  American 
plan  have  in  mind,  but  their  avowed  hostility  to  the  labor  unions 
raises  doubts  in  the  mind  of  the  disinterested  student.  He  is 
often  led  to  believe  that  the  preferential  non-union  shop  is  the 
thing  that  is  desired. 

In  times  of  industrial  prosperity,  when  manufactured  com- 
modities and  labor  are  in  great  demand,  when  prices  and  wages 
are  high,  the  labor  unions  exert  every  effort  to  extend  the 
principle  of  the  closed  union  shop.  When  the  pendulum  swings 
the  other  way,  when  thousands  are  out  of  work,  when  wages 
and  prices  are  going  down,  and  when  the  demand  for  goods 
has  fallen  off,  then  employers  are  more  insistent  in  their  de- 
mand for  the  open  shop.  During  the  war  and  for  some  months 
after  the  armistice  was  signed  labor  had  its  inning  and  took  full 
advantage  of  it.  During  this  period  the  membership  of  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor  was  doubled,  as  is  shown  in  the 
table  below.  During  the  summer  of  1920  a  marked  change  of 
conditions  set  in.  Although  prices  began  to  fall  there  was  less 
demand  for  goods.  Before  the  end  of  the  year  many  industries 
either  suspended  operations  or  reduced  them  to  a  considerable 
extent.  Then  there  developed  among  employers  a  spontaneous 
and  nation-wide  demand  for  the  open  shop.  It  was  endorsed 
by  the  United  States  Chamber  of  Commerce  by  an  overwhelm- 
ing vote.  It  is  supported  by  540  organizations  in  247  cities  in 
44  states.  Employers'  publications,  trade  journals,  leaflets  and 
pamphlets  issued  by  employers  associations  and  chambers  of 
commerce  have  been  very  strong  in  their  endorsement  of  the 
open  shop  campaign  during  the  past  six  months. 

In  December  1920  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  had 
4,500,000  members  with  109  national  and  international  unions, 
40,000  local  unions,  47  state  federations  of  labor,  968  city  central 
labor  bodies,  5  departments,  682  local  department  councils,  and 
1207  local  trade  and  federal  labor  unions  affiliated  directly.  The 
growth  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  is  shown  by  the 
following  table  which  is  taken  from  the  Report  of  the  Proceed- 
ings of  the  Forty-first  Annual  Convention  of  the  American  Feder- 
ation of  Labor,  p.  28. 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  3 

AMERICAN  FEDERATION  OF  LABOR. 

(average  membership  reported  for 

THE    PAST  twenty-five    YEARS.) 

Year  Membership 

1897 264,825 

1898 278,016 

1899    349,422 

1900    548,321 

1901    787,537 

1902   1,024,399 

1903   1,465,800 

1904 1,676,200 

1905  .  ■  • 1,494,300 

1906  1,454,200 

1907  1,538,970 

1908  1,586,885 

1909  1,482,872 

1910 1,562,112 

1911  1,761,835 

1912  1,770,145 

1913  1,996,004 

1914  2,020,671 

1915   1,946,347 

1916  2,072,702 

1917  2,371,434 

1918 2,726,478 

1919 3,260,068 

1920 4,078,740 

1921 3,906,528 

In  December  1920  Samuel  Gompers  wrote,  "There  are  5,500,- 
000  organized  workers  in  the  United  States.  The  American 
Federation  of  Labor  has  a  membership  of  4,500,000.  The  rail- 
road brotherhoods  have  a  membership  of  over  500,000.  There 
are  about  8,000,000  wage  earners  in  the  United  States  eligible 
to  membership  in  trade  unions.  Nearly  65  per  cent  are  organ- 
ized. The  5,500,000  organized  workers  represent  27,500,000 
people,  or  about  25  per  cent  of  the  population  of  the  United 
States,  It  is  often  said  that  there  are  38,000,000  people  engaged 
in  gainful  occupations,  but  those  engaged  in  gainful  occupations 


4  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

include  every  employer,  doctor,  lawyer,  dentist,  etc.  Only  wage 
earners   are   eligible   to   membership   in   the   trade   unions." 

Such  was  the  condition  of  organized  labor  at  the  close  of  the 
year  1920.  Its  membership  has  fallen  off,  since  that  time,  and 
the  closed  shop  has  lost  some  ground,  but  union  leaders  say  that 
the  losses  are  small  and  temporary. 

It  is  impossible  to  present  any  similar  table  of  simple  fig- 
ures that  will  show  the  growth  in  the  centralization  of  capital 
or  in  the  organization  of  the  employers,  but  there  have  been 
even  greater  strides  made  along  these  lines  in  the  last  forty 
years  than  by  union  labor  in  extending  its  membership. 

Organized  labor  wants  the  closed  union  shop  because  it 
gives  a  labor  power  that  puts  the  working  class  on  an  equal 
footing  with  the  employer.  When  all  the  employees  in  a  given 
trade  in  any  shop  are  union  men,  then  through  their  union  they 
can  bargain  with  their  employer  as  a  unit.  This  is  what  is 
meant  by  collective  bargaining.  It  is  a  condition  where  the 
parties  meet  as  equals.  Their  deliberations  usually  result  in  com- 
promising differences  and  in  reaching  an  argument  in  the  forma- 
tion of  which  each  has  had  a  voice.  If  none  of  the  employees, 
or  only  a  part  of  them,  are  union  men,  then  it  is  practically 
impossible  for  the  employees  in  any  large  establishment  to  bar- 
gain with  their  employer  as  a  unit,  but  they  must  deal  with 
him  as  separate  individuals.  Under  these  conditions  there  can 
be  no  real  collective  bargaining.  In  the  open  shop  the  work- 
man deals  as  an  individual  with  his  employer,  and  is  at  as 
great  a  disadvantage  as  the  employer  would  be  were  the  union 
in  a  closed  union  shop  to  refuse  to  deal  with  the  officers  of  a 
corporation  and  make  all  contracts  with  each  stockholder  as 
an  individual.  In  the  non-union  or  open  shop  wages,  hours, 
and  conditions  of  employment  are  fixed  by  the  employer. 

Organized  labor  demands  the  closed  union  shop  because  it 
desires  a  larger  voice  in  the  control  of  industry.  The  working 
class  do  not  like  to  be  mere  cogs  in  a  machine.  They  desire 
to  be  a  live,  human  part  of  industry,  to  be  consulted  and  to 
have  something  to  say  about  all  the  terms  and  conditions  of 
employment.     The  closed  union  shop  gives  them  such  a  voice. 

For  this  very  reason  employers,  as  a  rule,  are  opposed  to 
the  closed  shop,  and  demand  the  open  shop,  which  in  actual 
practice,  readily  becomes  a  preferential  non-union  shop,  or  a 
closed    non-union    shop.     Employers    as    a   class   want   to    "run 


THE   CLOSED   SHOP  5 

their  own  business."  They  have  been  greatly  annoyed  in  re- 
cent years  by  arbitrary  and  often  unreasonable  demands  made 
by  the  union  in  closed  shop  industries,  and  they  want  freedom 
from  such  interference. 

This  is  the  basis  of  the  controversy  over  the  open  or  closed 
shop.  Both  sides  are  seeking  self-interest.  Any  industry  has  only 
a  limited  margin  of  profit.  The  more  labor  gets  the  less  there 
is  for  dividends  and  management.  The  closed  shop  is  one  of 
the  labor  devices  to  enable  it  to  get  a  larger  share.  The  open 
shop  is  the  employers'  method  of  weakening  organized  labor  in 
its  fight. 

In  a  debate  upon  this  question  it  would  be  well  to  have  the 
terms  "open  shop"  and  "closed  shop"  clearly  and  carefully  de- 
fined, either  in  the  question  or  in  an  interpretation  mutually 
agreed  upon  by  the  contestants.  If  this  is  not  done  the  debaters 
may  find  themselves  debating  upon  the  meanings  of  these  terms, 
and  the  debate  will  become  a  mere  quibbling  contest.  In  this 
volume  the  question  for  debate  is  upon  the  closed  shop,  because 
that  term  is  quite  generally  understood  and  there  is  reasonable 
agreement  as  to  what  it  means,  and  because  there  is  no  doubt  that 
such  a  thing  does  in  reahty  exist.  The  only  dispute  on  the  term 
is  as  to  whether  it  should  be  closed  shop  or  union  shop,  but  this 
might  be  avoided  by  calling  it  the  closed  union  shop.  As  the 
question  is  stated  in  the  briefs  given  in  this  volume,  the  negative 
opposes  the  closed  shop,  and  upon  the  negative  rests  the  bur- 
den of  proving  first,  that  the  open  shop  as  defined  above  is  a 
reality,  second  that  it  can  in  reality  be  substituted  for  the 
closed  shop  where  the  latter  now  exists,  and  third,  that  it  would 
benefit  the  American  people  as  a  whole  to  have  it  so  substituted. 

Lamar  T.  Beman. 


GENERAL  DISCUSSION 

DEFINITIONS  OF  NATIONAL  AND  LOCAL 
UNIONS ' 

Among  American  trade  unionists  three  types  of  trade  unions 
are  formally  recognized — the  local,  the  national,  and  the  inter- 
national. The  typical  union  includes  only  members  who  live 
and  work  in  one  town,  and  its  business  is  done  by  vote  of  all 
the  members,  meeting  in  one  place.  Sometimes  there  are  sub- 
ordinate organizations,  more  or  less  formal,  composed  of  mem 
bers  employed  in  single  establishments.  Such  are  the  "chapels" 
of  the  printers,  which  long  antedate  any  more  formal  organiza- 
tion of  the  craft.  Such  are  the  "shop  meetings"  of  many  other 
trades.  It  often  happens  that  workers  in  a  place  where  no 
local  union  of  their  trade  exists  attach  themselves  to  the 
nearest,  though  they  may  not  be  able  to  take  part  in  its  ordinary 
deliberations.  Less  often,  where  a  few  workers  of  a  trade 
are  gathered,  they  are  organized  as  a  branch  of  a  neighboring 
local  union,  which  thus  assumes  a  complex  character.  This 
method  is  often  adopted  by  the  Brewery  Workmen. 

The  national  and  the  international  unions  represent  only  a 
single  type,  though  the  formal  distinction  between  them  is  care- 
fully made  in  trade-union  literature.  The  typical  national  union 
aspires  to  control  all  the  workers  of  its  trade  in  the  United 
States.  The  international  union  has  locals  not  only  in  the 
United  States,  but  also  in  Canada,  and,  in  a  few  cases,  in  Mex- 
ico. It  sometimes  happens  that  unions  which  are  recognized 
as  national  do  not  in  fact  have  members  outside  of  a  limited 
territory,  and  perhaps  make  no  effort  for  more  general  exten- 
sion. For  instance,  the  Cotton  Mule  Spinners,  like  several 
(5ther  unions  in  the  cotton  industry,  are  confined  to  New  Eng- 
land, excepting  a  few  local  unions  in  New  York.  The  North- 
ern Mineral  Mine  workers  have  apparently  no  desire  to  ex- 
tend beyond  the  boundaries  of  Michigan,  Minnesota,  and 
Wisconsin. 

National  and  international  unions  are  made  up  of  local  un- 

^  U.    S.    Industrial    Commission.       17  :  xv-xvi.      190 1. 


8  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

ions,  which  possess  more  or  less  complete  autonomy,  and  which 
join  in  one  way  or  another  in  the  government  of  the  general 
body. 

In  the  speech  of  trade  unionists  the  phrase  "local  union"  is 
often  abbreviated  to  "local,"  and  this  technical  usage  is  fre- 
quently employed  in  the  present  report.  The  word  "national" 
is  used  in  this  report  to  include  both  those  unions  which  call 
themselves  national  and  those  which  are  distinguished  as  in- 
ternational. 

The  great  majority  of  the  national  trade  unions  are  bound 
together  in  the  great  federal  organization,  The  American  Fed- 
eration of  Labor.  In  one  or  two  instances  there  are  alliances 
for  certain  purposes  among  small  numbers  of  national  unions 
in  related  trades.  The  International  Typographical  Union,  the 
pressmen,  and  the  bookbinders  have  for  some  years  main- 
tained a  "tripartite  agreement".  Efforts  have  for  some  time 
been  making  to  establish  an  alliance  of  the  national  unions  i 
the   metal   trades. 

Scarcely  inferior  in  importance  to  The  Federation  of  La- 
bor are  the  local  federations  or  trade  councils,  which  bind  to- 
gether the  local  unions  of  particular  cities.  Almost  every  im- 
portant town  has  its  central  organization  in  which  all  or  most 
of  the  local  unions  of  the  place  meet  together  by  delegates  to 
consider  matters  of  common  interest.  The  local  unions  of  the 
building  trades  commonly  have  federal  organizations  of  their 
own,  called  building  trades  councils,  for  the  consideration  of 
matters  of  peculiar  and  common  interest  to  them.  Similar  lo- 
cal alliances  are  sometimes  formed  by  unions  concerned  in 
other  broad  departments  of  industry  such  as  metal  working. 
The  present  report  is  devoted  primarily  to  the  organization  and 
policy  of  the  national  unions,  and  touches  only  incidentally 
upon   these  highly  important   but   local  phenomena. 


RELATIONS  OF  NATIONAL  AND  LOCAL 
UNIONS' 

In  a  historical  view  the  local  union  is  the  source  and  spring 
of  the  whole  labor  movement.  It  was  by  the  alliance  of  exist- 
ing local  unions  for  mutual  encouragement  and  support  that 
the  great  national    organizations    came    into    existence.     Local 

*  U.  S.  Industrial  Commission.     17:  xix-xx.   190 1. 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  9 

unions  of  stonecutters,  of  carpenters,  of  hatters,  and  of  print- 
ers had  existed  for  many  years  before  organization  on  a  large 
scale  was  seriously  attempted.  Even  nowadays,  though  labor 
unions  come  more  with  taking  thought  than  formerly,  and 
less  as  the  spontaneous  outgrowth  of  the  internal  conditions 
of  their  trades,  it  is  seldom  attempted  to  build  a  national  un- 
ion in  any  other  way  than  by   uniting  existing  locals. 

The  printers  have  perhaps  the  oldest  national  labor  organ- 
ization existing  in  the  United  States.  The  convention  out  of 
which  the  International  Typographical  Union  has  grown  was 
held  on  December  2,  1850.  The  national  association  of  the 
stonecutters  may  possibly,  however,  be  as  old  or  older.  It  had 
an  established  position  and  a  regularly  published  official  jour- 
nal by  1857,  but  the  date  of  its  origin  is  not  known.  The 
United  Sons  of  Vulcan,  one  of  the  predecessors  of  the  Amal- 
gamated Association  of  Iron,  Steel,  and  Tin  Workers,  was 
formed  in  1858,  the  Iron  Molders'  Union  of  North  America  in 
1859,  and  the  National  Cigar  Makers'  Union  in  1864. 
********** 

Though  the  local  union  is  historically  the  primary  phe- 
nomenon, and  the  national  union  is  secondary,  a  very  large  pro- 
portion of  the  local  unions  which  exist  to-day,  and  a  large  pro- 
portion of  those  which  from  day  to  day  come  into  existence, 
are  in  fact,  the  offspring  of  national  organization.  Some  of 
the  stronger  national  unions  maintain  regular  paid  organizers, 
who  devote  either  the  whole  or  some  portion  of  their  time  to 
traveling  from  place  to  place,  encouraging  and  strengthening 
existing  locals  of  their  trade,  and  where  none  exist,  establish- 
ing them.  The  work  of  the  organizers  commissioned  by  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor  is  cooperation.  A  considerable 
share  of  the  money  that  supports  it  comes  now  from  local  un- 
ions which  have  no  national  trade  organization  and  which  are 
directly  affiliated  with  the  Federation ;  but  these  locals  are 
themselves  almost  exclusively  the  result  of  past  Federation 
work,  and  the  new  locals,  so  far  as  they  are  to  be  regarded 
as  their  children,  are  descended  from  the  nationals  only  a  lit- 
tle more  remotely.  The  Federation  has  over  800  "general  or- 
ganizers" bearing  its  commission  in  all  parts  of  the  country,  and 
constantly  active  in  the  neighborhood  of  their  homes  in  or- 
ganizing not  the  workmen  of  their  own  trades  only,  but  those 
of  all  trades.  These  men  and  women  work  without  payment, 
except  the  commissions,  ranging  from  $5  to  $20,  which  most 
national  unions  offer  for  the  organization  of  new  locals.     They 


10  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

support  .themselves  by  the  daily  labor  of  their  hands.  Their 
organizing  work  is,  therefore  confined  to  their  hours  of  lei- 
sure. Until  recently  the  Federation  had  no  money  for  organ- 
izing, except  sporadically,  by  any  other  means.  The  great  in- 
crease of  its  membership  during  the  last  two  or  three  years 
has  changed  that.  The  income  has  doubled  and  .trebled.  The 
salaries  of  its  officers  have  not  been  materially  increased,  and 
while  there  has  been  an  increase  of  necessary  administrative 
expenses,  it  has  borne  no  comparison  to  the  increase  of  re- 
ceipts. There  has  remained,  therefore,  a  surplus  of  many 
thousand  dollars  a  year  applicable  to  missionary  labors.  Dur- 
ing 1900  the  Federation  kept  in  the  field  upon  the  average  some 
eight  "special  organizers"  under  salary.  During  igoi  the  aver- 
age number  may  reach  twenty-five.  Some  of  the  time  of  these 
men  is  devoted  to  the  settlement  of  disputes,  the  supervision 
of  strikes,  and  other  work  of  maintenance  and  conservation. 
Their  energies  are  chiefly  directed,  however,  to  bringing  the 
unorganized  into  the  union  ranks,  and  especially  to  the  es- 
tablishment of  new  local  unions  where  there  has  been  no  or- 
ganization of  the  crafts  concerned. 

*********** 

Each  local  union,  even  when  subordinate  to  a  national  or- 
ganization, is  a  self-governing  unit.  Its  theoretical  relation 
to  the  national  body  is  similar  to  that  of  one  of  our  States  to 
the  United  States.  The  local  body  has  power  to  do  anything 
which  is  not  specifically  forbidden  in  the  national  constitution. 
Rates  of  wages  are,  of  necessity,  matters  of  local  considera- 
tion in  almost  all  trades.  Hours  of  labor  are  also  fixed  local- 
ly, in  most  trades,  according  to  local  conditions.  Even  the 
unions  which  have  national  laws  to  limit  hours  cannot  always 
enforce  them  in  all  places,  and  they  •  are  glad  to  have  hours 
shortened  by  their  locals  beyond  the  national  requirement. 
The  regulation  of  apprenticeship  is  left  by  many  unions  to 
the  locals,  and  even  when  national  rules  are  made  the  locals 
often  make  further  restrictions.  A  few  national  unions  fix 
initiation  fees  and  dues,  but  in  most  cases  the  locals  fix  them 
either  without  any  restriction  or  subject  to  a  maximum  limit. 
Locals  levy  assessments  upon  their  members,  and  inflict  fines 
and  other  forms  of  discipline.  Hardly  any  restriction  is  placed 
upon  the  power  to  collect  local  assessments,  except  that  in  a 
few  cases  it  is  forbidden  to  raise  them  to  support  strikes  un- 
authorized by  the  national  officers.     In  the  matter  of  discipline 


THE   CLOSED   SHOP  ii 

there  is  usually  an  appeal  to  the  national  authorities,  and  a 
few  unions  forbid  the  imposition  of  a  fine  above  a  certain 
amount  without  the  approval  of  the  national  executive  board. 
In  ordinary  cases,  however,  in  most  organizations,  the  local 
unions  do  what  is  right  in  their  own  eyes. 

CAUSES  OF  DISPUTES^ 

As  indicated  in  another  connection  (see  p.  LI),  the  number 
of  unions  which  are  able  to  enforce  limitations  upon  the  em- 
ployment of  apprentices  is  comparatively  small.  Demands 
seeking  to  limit  the  number  of  apprentices,  to  regulate  the 
conditions  of  their  employment,  or  to  prevent  the  employment 
of  children  or  young  persons  on  work  which  men  consider  as 
properly  falUng  within  their  sphere,  account  for  seventy-eight 
hundredths  of  i  per  cent,  of  the  total  number  of  disputes.  The 
charge  that  labor  unions  try  to  prevent  the  introduction  of 
machinery  and  improved  appliances  may  be  well-founded  in 
some  instances,  but  apparently  they  seldom  feel  justified  in 
ordering  strikes  for  this  purpose.  The  entire  number  of  es- 
tablishments affected  by  strikes  regarding  the  use  of  machinery 
during  the  20  years  covered  by  the  table  show  only  221 ;  only 
about  one-seventh  of  i  per  cent,  of  all  causes  of  strikes. 

The  remaining  causes  of  strikes  are  very  numerous  and  it 
would  hardly  be  profitable,  in  a  summary  table,  to  attempt  to 
sub-divide  them  into  groups.  The  headings  above  discussed 
include  the  great  majority  of  all  causes  of  strikes;  no  less 
than  96  per  cent.  The  6,075  remaining  causes  of  strikes  have 
to  do  in  most  instances  with  the  physical  conditions  under 
which  labor  is  performed,  the  sanitation  of  shops,  the  methods 
of  work,  the  character  of  food  and  lodging,  when  these  are 
furnished  by  the  employer,  and  the  like  matters.  Several  hun- 
dred strikes  are  reported  as  having  been  caused  by  the  attempt 
to  prevent  employers  from  violating  agreements  or  breaking 
away  from  previously  recognized  union   rules. 

It  will  be  seen  from  this  discussion  that  no  less  than  three- 
fourths  of  all  strikes  are  due  to  the  direct  desire  of  working 
men  to  improve  their  condition,  either  by  raising  wages,  pre- 
venting decrease  of  wages,  or  reducing  hours  of  labor.  All 
the  other  innumerable  minor  causes  account  for  only  one- 
fourth  of  the  entire  number  of  such  disputes. 

'  U.   S.  Industrial  Commission.   17:655.   1901. 


12  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

"PRINCIPLE"  OF  THE  OPEN  SHOP' 

"Principle"  and  "liberty"  are  fascinating  words,  but,  like 
religion,  they  have  many  meanings.  They  are  so  pleasing  to 
the  public  ear  that  they  are  freely  used  in  the  advocacy  of 
every  cause.  The  Tsar  and  his  ministers,  who  hang  hundreds 
of  persons  in  a  single  day  without  trial,  and  bury  them  by 
moonlight,  talk  of  "principle"  and  "liberty"  with  as  much  zeal 
as  would  the  advocates  of  democracy  and  equal  rights.  Nor  is 
this  necessarily  an  evidence  of  insincerity.  People  generally 
think  through  their  interests,  not  always  their  individual  inter- 
est, but  through  the  interests  of  their  social,  economic,  or  po- 
litical group.  The  meaning,  therefore,  of  such  phrases  as 
"principle"  and  "liberty"  is  mainly  a  matter  of  interpretation, 
which  depends  very  largely  on  the  point  of  view. 

When  the  English  middle  class  wanted  the  franchise,  they 
became  the  exponents  of  the  principle  of  political  liberty  and 
democratic  representation.  Their  arguments  read  very  much 
like  the  Declaration  of  Independence;  but  after  they  had  ac- 
quired the  suffrage  (by  the  passage  of  the  First  Reform  Bill) 
their  point  of  view  changed.  When  the  laborers  asked  for  the 
suffrage,  the  middle  class  opposed  it  on  the  principle  of  prop- 
erty rights  with  as  much  vigor  as  their  own  enfranchisement 
had  been  opposed  by  the  aristocracy.  Their  point  of  view  had 
changed  with  the  shifting  of  their  interests. 

This  is  as  true  in  the  field  of  economics  as  in  politics  and 
government.  Under  the  leadership  of  John  Bright  and  Rich- 
ard Cobden,  the  English  Liberals  were  the  the  bitterest  ene- 
mies of  the  Factory  Acts,  the  most  beneficent  legislation  of 
the  nineteenth  century.  These  very  good  men  opposed,  and  for 
many  years  retarded,  the  legal  limitation  of  the  working  day 
for  children  in  factories  as  a  matter  of  principle,  and  in  the 
interests  of  personal  liberty.  It  interfered  with  the  personal  lib- 
erty of  English  manufacturers,  who  could  take  children  from 
the  poor-house  and  work  them  in  the  factories  without  limit 
as  to  age  or  hours.  The  fact  that  this  dwarfed  the  children, 
developed  decrepitude,  ignorance,  and  a  multitude  of  physical 
diseases  and  social  vices  mattered  not.  It  was  a  violation  of 
the  employer's  liberty  to  conduct  his  business  in  his  own  way, 

1  Gunton.   27:1-13.    July.    1904- 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  13 

pay  such  wages  and  furnish  such  conditions  and  make  such 
requirements  as  he  pleased.  Men  like  Richard  Cobden  and 
John  Bright,  and  the  multitude  of  really  noble  men  who 
preached  their  gospel,  were  not  heartless  humbugs;  but  they 
honestly  advocated  what  to  them  was  a  politcal  principle,  the 
right  of  every  man  to  do  exactly  what  he  pleased  with  himself 
and  his  own.  But  they  interpreted  this  principle  from  the 
point  of  view  of  the  English  manufacturer's  interests.  They 
might  sympathize  with  the  poor,  but  any  interference  to  fur- 
nish protection  against  the  consequence  of  these  conditions  was 
a  violation  of  human  rights,  and,  therefore,  not  to  be  tolerated. 

The  fallacy  of  this  interpretation  of  "principle"  and  "liberty" 
gradually  became  clear  to  society.  The  interests  of  civilization 
demanded  that  society  should  impose  a  limit  upon  the  exactions 
of  manufacturers  upon  the  working  women  and  children.  Par- 
liament finally  said  to  the  factory  masters:  You  shall  not 
employ  children  under  thirteen  years  of  age  more  than  half 
a  day  at  a  time,  and  only  then  pn  condition  that  they  go  to 
school  the  other  half;  and  you  shall  not  employ  minors  and 
women  at  night;  and  you  shall  not  employ  women  and  children 
continuously  more  than  sixty  hours  a  week. 

The  hovels  in  which  these  working  people  had  been  herded 
were  so  injurious  to  health  and  morals  as  to  be  well-nigh 
pestilential ;  and  the  so-called  "freedom"  was  again  encroached 
upon  by  Parliament  by  forbidding  the  use  of  basements  as 
dwellings  and  prescribing  certain  sanitary  conditions  in  houses 
before  laborers  were  permitted  to  live  in  them.  This  compelled 
the  manufacturers  to  spend  more  money  on  houses  for  their 
laborers,  and  was  resented,  of  course,  as  an  encroachment  on 
their  liberty.  All  this  has  finally  received  the  endorsement 
of  science  and  civilization  and  has  proved  to  be  not  only  con- 
sistent with,  but  an  essential  part  of,  the  conditions  of  personal 
liberty.  The  fundamental  principle  of  freedom  is  not  that  each 
one  should  do  as  he  pleases  with  his  own,  but  that  he  shall 
so  conduct  himself  and  use  his  own  as  not  to  injure  the  inter- 
ests and  opportunities  of  others.  The  idea  that  an  employer 
can  run  his  factory  as  he  pleases,  when  he  pleases,  and  under 
such  sanitary  conditions  as  he  pleases,  and  may  treat  his  laborers 
as  he  pleases,  is  a  false  notion  of  freedom.  Of  course  the 
English  manufacturers  did  not  see  this ;  they  were  not  tjTants, 
but   they   acted   like   tyrants.     Their    seemingly   oppressive   and 


14  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

heartless  attitude  was  due  entirely  to  their  point  of  view,  they 
interpreted  the  principle  of  personal  liberty  through  their  own 
interests. 

Experience,  economic  science,  and  social  and  political  phi- 
losophy all  show  that  this  standard  of  interpretation  of  social 
principle  and  personal  liberty  is  narrow.  The  only  point  of 
view  from  which  economic  and  social  law  and  the  principle 
of  liberty  can  be  properly  interpreted  is  from  the  viewpoint  of 
society.  From  no  other  can  be  seen  the  interests  of  all  the 
contending  groups.  Any  interpretation  of  economic  and  polit- 
ical principle  that  excludes  a  large  class  of  the  community,  is 
sure  to  react  on  the  class  in  whose  interest  the  restrictive  policy 
is  adopted.  Thus,  for  example,  any  policy  based  on  the  inter- 
ests of  employers  to  the  exclusion  of  the  interests  of  the  la- 
borers, must  ultimately  react  to  the  detriment  of  the  employ- 
ing class,  because,  in  modern  society,  the  success  of  the  busi- 
ness enterprise  largely  depends  upon  the  welfare  of  the  masses. 
Anything  that  hinders  the  material  progress  of  the  mass  of 
wage-earners,  is  in  the  nature  of  things  detrimental  to  the 
business  interests  of  employers,  as  reducing  the  laborers'  power 
to  consume  destroys  the  very  market  upon  which  the  prosperity 
of  employers  depends.  And,  conversely,  any  policy  that  injures 
the  profit-making  opportunity  of  capital  necessarily  reacts  upon 
labor,  as  destroying  the  opportunity  for  profitable  enterprise 
lessens  the  possibility  of  employment  and  makes  increasing 
wages  and  improved  conditions  for  labor  impossible. 

The  point  of  view  then,  from  which  the  open  shop  question, 
like  all  other  questions  of  modern  industry,  must  finally  be  set- 
tled is  not  alone  the  interests  of  laborers,  nor  the  convenience 
of  employers,  but  the  interests  of  society,  which  include  the  in- 
terest and  welfare  of  both.  No  mere  abstract  proposition  re- 
garding freedom  is  adequate  for  dealing  with  the  situation. 
It  is  a  practical  proposition  that  has  to  do  with  the  daily  inter- 
ests of  the  laborers  on  the  one  hand  and  the  successful  man- 
agement of  business  on  the  other.  Any  adequate  consideration 
of  the  subject  must  reckon  with  the  prejudices  as  well  as  with 
the  interests  and  rights  of  both  sides,  and  no  other  question 
of  practical  economics  is  more  weighted  down  with  prejudice. 
On  the  employer's  side,  there  is  the  prejudice  against  unions. 
True,  the  right  of  laborers  to  organize  is  conceded  as  a  theory, 
but  practically  it  is  denied.  No  solution  of  this  question  can 
be   permanent   that   does   not   admit   with    equal    frankness,   the 


THE  CLOSED  SHOP  15 

laborers'  right  to  organize  and  to  act  through  their  organiza- 
tions, and  the  capitaHsts'  right  to  organize  and  act  through 
their  organizations.  To  dispute  this  right  to  either  group  is 
to  beg  the  question  under  consideration.  There  is  not  power 
enough  in  the  courts  and  government  to  stop  either  labor  or 
capital  from  organizing,  for  the  obvious  reason  that  organiza- 
tion is  the  inevitable  consequence  of  the  natural  development 
of  industrial  society.  Railing  against  "trusts"  may  furnish  food 
for  a  political  campaign,  but  it  must  ultimately  be  futile  in 
suppressing  corporate  development,  unless  it  succeeds  in  ar- 
resting the  progress  of  society.  Employers  and  editors  might 
just  as  well  recognize,  once  for  all,  that  the  task  of  suppressing 
labor-unions  or  preventing  them  from  acting  as  the  bargain- 
makers  for  labor  is  as  futile  as  the  fantastical  effort  to  suppress 
corporations. 

This  much  granted  (and  without  it  nothing  is  worth  con- 
sidering), the  question  is — does  the  recognition  of  unions  log- 
ically involve  the  closed  shop,  and  does  the  open  shop  logically 
involve  the  denial  of  the  right  of  unions  to  act  for  organized 
labor?  In  discussing  the  open  shop  principle  the  "Journal  of 
Commerce"  quotes  from  the  declaration  of  the  National  Asso- 
ciation of  Clothing  Manufacturers,  "The  closed  shop  is  an  un 
American  institution.  The  right  of  every  man  to  sell  his  labor 
as  he  sees  fit,  and  the  freedom  of  every  employer  to  hire  such 
labor,  are  given  by  the  laws  of  the  land,"  It  then  quotes 
President  Eliot  of  Harvard  as  saying:  "The  surrender  of  per- 
sonal freedom  to  an  association  is  almost  as  great  an  obstacle  to 
happiness  as  its  loss  to  a  despot  or  to  a  ruling  class,  especially 
if  membership  in  the  association  is  compelled  and  the  associa- 
tion touches  livelihood,"  The  Journal  devotes  the  remainder 
of  its  editorial  to  glorifying  and  sustaining  this  declaration : 

The  labor  unions,  so  far  as  they  insist  upon  the  closed  shop  as  a 
principle,  constitute  a  class  representing  certain  industries,  mostly  me- 
chanical, which  arrogates  to  itself  the  power,  denied  to  the  law  and  the 
government  in  every  free  country.  .  .  .  The  open  shop  means  the 
right  of  men  to  work  at  their  trade  without  joining  a  union,  if  they  so 
prefer,  and  the  right  to  hire  men  whether  they  belong  to  a  union  or  not 
and  to  give  them  an  equal  chance.  These  rights  are  fundamental  in  a 
land  of  liberty  and  law,  and  their  denial  is  the  principle  of  despotism 
and  not  of  freedom.  Leaders  of  labor  unions  fear  this  kind  of  liberty 
as  destructive  to  their  organization,  just  as  despotic  governments  fear  per- 
sonal  freedom   as   destructive   of  their   system. 

This  is  anti-union  pleading,  not  open  shop  reasoning.  It  is 
talking  in  the  abstract,  and  fails  to  state  the  case  as  it  is. 
The  union  can  make  a  statement  equally  plausible  in  favor  of 


i6  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

the  closed  shop,  which  the  open  shop  advocates  would  reject  as 
wholly  inadequate  because  of  what  lurks  behind  it.  Men  like 
President  Eliot  of  Harvard  really  beheve  in  freedom,  but  they 
are  so  unfamiliar  with  the  actual  working  of  shop  conditions 
and  the  real  attitude  of  many  employers  toward  unions,  that 
'their  reasoning  relates  to  conditions  that  do  not  exist.  President 
Eliot  is  talking  of  a  world  in  which  nobody  lives. 

To  quote  the  Clothing  Manufacturers'  declaration  that  the 
"closed  shop  is  an  un-American  institution"  is  like  quoting  the 
Tsar  on  political   freedom. 

The  clothing  manufacturers  of  this  country  are  pre-eminently 
those  in  whose  hands  the  open  shop  would  mean  no  union. 
They  are  the  class  of  manufacturers  that  represents  the  sweat- 
shops in  our  large  cities,  against  which  the  union  shop  is  the 
only  effective  weapon.  No  other  single  force  has  done  so  much 
to  compel  decency  and  a  modicum  of  economic  fairness  in  the 
clothing  business  as  the  union.  It  is  well  known  to  the  sweat- 
shop workers  and  to  all  who  have  investigated  the  conditions  of 
clothing  manufacture  that,  as  a  class,  the  clothing  manufac- 
turers have  introduced  economic  conditions  that  are  a  disgrace  to 
American  industry.  It  is  only  by  desperate  closed  shop  efforts, 
aided  by  drastic  legislation,  that  the  sweat-shops  in  our  large 
cities  are  prevented  from  being  pestilential  dens.  For  years 
they  have  been  the  collectors  of  the  ignorant,  squalor-ridden  out- 
casts from  Europe.  Through  a  system  of  contractors,  sub- 
contractors, and  employment  agents,  they  have  taken  the  ignor- 
ant, poverty-stricken  immigrants,  whom  they  have  been  the 
means  of  bringing  to  this  country,  and  used  them  like  slaves, 
converting  so-called  homes  into  pest-houses,  often  crowding 
from  ten  to  twenty  persons  in  a  single  room,  where  they  eat, 
sleep,  and  work.  This  system  has  invaded  the  large  cities  of 
both  Europe  and  this  country.  The  only  force  that  has  suc- 
ceeded in  partly  breaking  down  this  uncivilized,  unsanitary,  and 
inhuman,  as  well  as  un-American,  system  has  been  the  indefati- 
gable efforts  of  the  trade  union.  To  refer,  therefore,  to  the 
clothing  manufacturers'  high  sounding  declaration  about  "free- 
dom" and  "un-American"  institutions  is  to  flaunt  mockery  and 
sham  in  the  faces  of  the  laborers  and  of  the  public. 

It  is  just  such  things  that  arouse  the  suspicion  of  the  work- 
ing men  against  the  good  faith  of  the  plea  for  the  open  shop. 
Knowing  the  history  and  character  of  clothing  manufacturers 
from  bitter  experience,  the  Garment  Markers'  Union  distrusts 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  17 

every  such  sounding  phrase  as  a  platitude,  and  goes  to  the 
other  extreme.  Thus,  in  a  recent  article  on  "The  Open  Shop 
in  a  Nutshell,"  the  editor  of  the  "Weekly  Bulletin  of  the  Clothing 
Trades,"  says :  "The  very  argument  advanced  by  the  employer 
in  favor  of  the  open  shop  is  the  strongest  reason  for  the 
workmen  to  oppose  it.  The  principle  in  the  abstract  means 
nothing;  the  conditions  under  which  it  is  applied  mean  every- 
thing. We  are  concerned  with  the  liberty  that  results  from  cer- 
tain conditions   rather  than   nominal  liberty." 

It  is  true  all  trades  are  not  as  bad  off  as  the  clothing  trade ; 
all  employers  are  not  like  sweat-shop  manufacturers.  The 
.working  men  can  not  be  expected  to  look  with  much  confidence 
or  respect  upon  reasoning  of  that  kind,  especially  from  that 
source ;  and  when  such  respectable  publications  as  the  "Journal 
of  Commerce"  and  such  honored  educators  as  President  Eliot 
reason  in  the  same  way,  and  declare  the  union's  "opposition  to 
the  open  shop  based  upon  the  distrust  of  real  freedom,"  they 
misrepresent  the  case  and  aggravate,  rather  than  help  to  solve, 
the  problem. 

On  the  other  hand,  for  labor  leaders  to  declare  that  the 
very  fact  that  employers  are  in  favor  of  the  open  shop  is  the 
strongest  reason  for  workmen  to  oppose  it,  is  an  equally  per- 
verse presentation  of  the  case.  It  may  be  true  of  clothing 
manufacturers  and  of  some  few  mean  employers,  but  it  is 
not  true  of  the  largest  and  best  employers  in  the  country,  and 
it  is  untrue  as  a  general  argument.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the 
unionists  can  not  deny  that  the  closed  shop  is  frequently  used 
as  a  means  of  unjustifiable  despotism.  Take  the  recent  case  of 
the  strike  of  the  freight  handlers  on  the  Fall  River  Line. 
That  strike  was  to  force  the  discharge  of  an  old  employe  be- 
cause he  did  not  join  the  union.  There  is  no  evidence  that  he 
did  anything  amiss,  but,  as  in  the  case  of  the  government  print- 
ing office,  the  strikers  simply  demanded  that  he  should  join  the 
union  or  be  discharged.  There  may  be  individual  cases  where 
the  men  are  justified  in  refusing  to  work  with  an  objectionable 
person.  A  spy  and  a  tattler,  who  devotes  himself  to  carrying 
tales  and  injuring  the  men,  is  an  object  of  contempt;  and  it  is 
not  unreasonable  for  workmen  to  refuse  to  associate  with  him. 
But  to  insist  that  no  man  shall  be  permitted  to  work,  unless  he 
joins  the  union,  could  not  be  endured  as  a  general  policy. 

This  is  not  a  mere  abstract  principle,  but  is  a  practical  prop- 
osition.    Nor  is  it  feasible,  as  a  working  rule  in  any  business, 


i8  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

that  the  union  shall  control  the  employment  and  discharge  of 
men,  or  the  actions  of  the  foreman.  ;  Yet,  where  the  closed  shop 
prevails,  it  is  not  uncommon  to  find  that  they  demand  that  the 
foreman  shall  be  a  member  of  the  union,  in  some  cases  that  he 
be  appointed  by  the  union.' \  This  is  taking  the  management  of 
the  business  out  of  the  hands  of  the  owner  and  placing  it  in  the 
hands  of  the  laborers,  which  is  an  impossible  policy.  It  might 
work  in  a  few  instances,  but  it  could  never  endure  as  a  gen- 
eral policy.  It  is  the  abuse  of  this  shop  authority  that  has  led 
to  the  opposition  to  the  closed  shop  and  the  general  demand 
among  employers  for  the  open  shop.  Hitherto  there  have  been 
too  many  Sam  Parkses  in  the  closed  shops.  They  may  not  have 
demanded  blackmail  in  the  same  bold  fashion,  but  they  have 
used  their  authority  in  a  similar  dictatorial,  uneconomic,  and 
often  corrupt  manner.  This  is  natural.  Laborers  are  human, 
and  can  not  be  trusted  with  absolute  power.  They  are  like 
politicians;  when  they  get  power,  they  use  it  in  an  arbitrar>, 
and  frequently  in  a  corrupt  manner.  The  only  way  to  prevent 
labor  leaders  from  becoming  corruptionists  and  dictatorial  "boss- 
es" and  blackmailers  is  to  prevent  them  from  having  power. 
Reformers  are  usually  generous  and  altruistic  when  under  the 
spell  of  the  reforming  spirit ;  but  when  they  become  possessed  of 
arbitrary  power  they  become  despots.  Freedom  can  be  main- 
tained only  by  making  despotism  impossible.  Now,  the  closed 
shop,  in  the  sense  of  handing  over  to  the  union  the  absolute 
power  to  compel  every  worker  to  belong  to  the  union,  must, 
in  the  nature  of  things,  soon  take  on  the  despotic,  coercive 
form.  As  despots,  laborers  are  just  as  big  tyrants  as  cap- 
italists.    It  is  only  a  question  of  having  the  power. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  laborers  can  present  some  strong 
reasons  for  opposing  the  open  shop.  They  argue,  from  ex- 
perience, that  if  non-union  laborers  are  permitted  to  work 
alongside  of  union  laborers,  the  employers  will  discriminate 
against  the  union  men  for  the  sole  purpose  of  breaking  the 
power  of  the  union.  Thus,  in  every  possible  case,  union  men  will 
be  discharged  and  non-union  men  employed,  and  so  finally 
make  the  union  a  disadvantage.  In  an  article  on  this  subject, 
Henry  White  states  the  case  of  a  delegate  to  the  convention  of 
the  Citizens'  Industrial  Association  at  Chicago  last  year,  who 
said :  "A  year  or  so  before  the  formation  of  the  alliance,  I  had 
297  union  men.  Now  I  have  6.  And  before  long  I  hope  to 
have,    not    an    open    shop,    but    a    closed    shop — closed    against 


THE   CLOSED   SHOP  19 

the  union."  With  this  spirit  and  practice  among  employers, 
the  laborers'  only  defense  is  the  closed  shop.  This  kind  of 
warfare  makes  some  kind  of  closed  shop  unavoidable — closed 
against  non-union  men,  or  closed  against  union  men. 

The  employers  are  justified  in  regarding  the  closed  or  union 
shop,  at  present  conducted,  as  something  to  be  resisted,  and 
the  laborers  might  as  well  recognize  the  fact  that  it  will  be 
resisted.  On  the  other  hand,  so  long  as  employers  use  the 
open  shop  merely  to  make  a  closed  shop  against  unions,  they 
may  take  it  for  granted  that  they  will  have  a  fight  on  their 
hands.  The  closed  shop  against  union  men  is  as  impossible  as 
is  the  closed  shop  against  non-union  men.  Unions  are  as  inevi- 
table as  corporations  and  the  true  way  to  avoid  the  tyranny 
of  the  closed  shop  is  to  deal  with  the  unions  in  good  faith. 
Yet,  so  long  as  the  unions  insist  upon  dictating  the  manage- 
ment of  the  business  affairs  of  the  employer  and  coercing  men 
into  their  union,  they  will  receive  the  opposition  of  employers 
and  distrust  of  the  public. 

As  already  remarked,  this  is  not  an  abstract,  but  a  practical 
qiiestion.  All  practical  questions,  if  properly  solved,  must  be 
solved  consistently  with  sound  principle.  The  principle  involved 
in  this  question  is  one  of  freedom — not  the  freedom  of  the 
employer  to  do  as  he  likes  with  his  own  and  conduct  his  shop 
just  as  he  pleases,  regardless  of  the  interests  of  the  laborers  or 
the  public;  nor  the  freedom  of  the  union  to  do  just  what  it 
pleases,  merely  because  it  has  the  power,  regardless  of  the  in- 
terest of  the  non-unionists  or  the  employers.  The  principle  of 
liberty  involved  here  is  the  same  as  that  which  underlies  all 
free  society — that  the  employers  must  have  the  liberty  to  or- 
ganize their  industry  and  conduct  their  business  consistently 
with  the  rights  of  other  people.  So  far  as  the  general  condi- 
tions of  the  work-shop  are  concerned,  it  is  a  matter  of  public 
interest  that  they  should  not  be  inimical  to  the  health,  morality, 
and  welfare  of  those  employed.  So  far  as  buying  their  material, 
selling  their  products,  hiring  their  labor,  and  organizing  their 
industry,  and,  in  short,  managing  their  business,  are  concerned, 
they  must  have  the  liberty  to  do  it  un-coerced. 

The  laborers'  side  of  the  problem  is  to  contract  for  the  sale 
of  their  services  and  the  personal  treatment  by  the  employers. 
In  doing  this  they  must  have  the  same  freedom  to  act  in- 
dividually or  collectively  as  they  have  to  buy  hats  or  to  cast 
their  ballots  on  election  day.     Tn   organizing  for  that  purpose, 


20  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

they  must  be  under  no  actual  or  implied  disadvantage.  So 
long  as  this  right  is  interfered  with,  directly  or  indirectly, 
the  laborer's  freedom  is  interfered  with,  he  is  coerced,  and  a 
state   of   distrust   and   war   may  be    expected. 

In  forming  organizations  and  conducting  them,  the  laborers 
have  absolutely  no  right  to  use  any  other  than  moral  force. 
To  use  coercion  to  build  up  an  organization  is  as  indefensible  as 
it  is  to  use  coercion  or  corruption  in  politics.  It  is  useless  for 
anybody  to  deny  that  unions  use  coercion,  because  it  is  well 
known  that  they  do;  and  before  they  can  hope  to  get  the  fair 
treatment  and  full  recognition  they  demand,  they  must  give  up 
coercive  methods  as  a  means  of  organizing  their  unions  and 
enforcing  their  demands.  There  is  no  economic  or  moral 
objection  to  the  union  shop,  provided  the  method  of  unionizing 
the  shop  is  free  from  coercion.  For  instance,  if  all  the  laborers 
in  a  factory  were  willing  to  join  the  union  there  could  be  no 
economic  moral  reason  for  objection;  but  if  a  laborer  is  tired 
of  the  union,  or  fails  to  pay  his  dues,  or  for  any  other  reason 
declines  to  be  a  member,  there  is  no  principle  of  economics, 
ethics,  or  expediency  that  justifies  the  union  in  forcing  him 
back  into  its  ranks.  To  inaugurate  a  strike  to  compel  his 
discharge,  is  despotic  and  brutal  and  will  never  be  approved  by 
the  public  or  tolerated  by  employers.  Union  membership  must 
be  voluntary.  There  should  be  as  much  freedom  to  join  and 
leave  as  there  is  in  the  membership  of  a  church  or  of  a  -social 
club. 

Whenever  a  union  is  established  in  a  shop,  it  should  be 
recognized  by  the  employers  in  all  cases  of  bargaining  about 
wages,  or  other  interests  of  the  laborers.  If  a  dispute  arises, 
a  representative  of  the  union  should  be  recognized  as  spokesman 
for  all  those  who  belong  to  the  union.  If  the  non-union 
laborers  do  not  agree  with  the  decision  and  refuse  to  go  out, 
which  is  very  seldom,  of  course,  they  must  be  left  free  to 
act  on  their  own  decision,  with  the  same  freedom  that  the 
union  has.  In  most  cases,  the  union  will  be  right  in  its  demands, 
especially  if  no  unprincipled  v/alking-delegate  has  the  power 
to  decide  the  matter,  and  perhaps  ninety  per  cent,  of  non-union 
men  will  agree  with  it,  as  they  nearly  always  do.  In  such  case, 
the  union  men  must  not  be  discriminated  against,  if  the  struggle 
is  lost,  or  because  they  were  more  active  in  making  the  demands. 

Here  is  where  much  of  the  evil  really  arises.  The  employers 
have  all  too   frequently  discriminated  against  those  who   make 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  21 

the  demands,  refusing  to  take  them  back.  They  do  this  on  the 
plea  that  they  have  the  right  to  employ  whom  they  please, 
which  is  true ;  but  so  long  as  they  make  membership  in  a 
union  or  prominence  in  presenting  demands  an  offense,  the 
union  has  a  plausible  reason  for  adopting  means  of  protecting 
its  members.  If  union  men  are  to  be  discriminated  against  in 
favor  of  non-union  men,  it  is  only  human  that  they  should  have 
recourse  to  similar  unfair  means  to  make  non-union  men  im- 
possible. 

All  considerations  of  economic  justice  and  of  personal  free- 
dom for  employers  to  conduct  their  business,  and  for  laborers 
to  defend  their  rights,  demand  that  the  open  shop  shall  be 
maintained.  If  employers  want  the  open  shop,  they  must  treat 
the  unions  honorably  and  fairly  and  in  good  faith ;  and  if  the 
unions  want  such  recognition,  they  must  establish  voluntary 
membership  in  organizations.  So  long  as  employers  discriminate 
against  unions,  the  closed  shop  will  -be  demanded ;  and  so  long 
as  unions  use  coercion  to  build  up  their  organizations,  the  open 
shop   will   be   demanded   and   the   union    distrusted. 

While  the  open  shop  is  obviously  a  practical  question,  it 
must  ultimately  be  solved  on  a  basis  consistent  with  the  prin- 
ciple of  personal  liberty  for  all — liberty  of  union  men  to  act 
through  their  union  without  hindrance  or  discrimination,  liberty 
for  non-union  men  to  act  individually  without  hindrance  or 
discrimination,  and  the  liberty  of  employers  to  organize,  and 
conduct  the  management  of  their  business  without  interference. 
So  long  as  these  rights  are  denied,  and  either  side  insists- on 
dictating  to  the  other,  the  war  of  the  open  against  the  closed 
shop  will  continue. 


CLOSED  SHOP  VERSUS  OPEN  SHOP* 

The  increasing  activity  of  trade  unions  in  pressing  their 
claims  for  recognition  at  the  present  time  is  resulting  in  a 
renewal  of  the  discussion  of  the  merits  of  the  closed  shop  versus 
the  open  shop.  The  campaign  against  the  closed  shop  was  so 
successful  in  certain  industries  a  dozen  or  more  years  ago  that 
the  movement  itself  seems  to  have  lost  momentum  because  of  its 
success.     Just  now,  with  unprecedented  demands   for  all  grades 

^  H.  E.  Hoagland.  American  Economic  Review.  8:752-62.  December, 
1918. 


22  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

and  classes  of  labor,  the  workers  seem  to  have  regained  a  part 
of  their  lost  bargaining  power  and  to  have  been  placed,  tempor- 
arily at  least,  in  a  position  to  again  demand  recognition  from 
those  employers  who  for  a  generation  have  refused  to  meet  with 
the  representatives  of  organized  labor.  Hence  the  reappear- 
ance of  the  arguments  for  and  against  the  closed  shop. 

For  the  most  part  this  discussion  is  conducted  by  employers 
or  their  representatives,  and  is  therefore  stated  in  the  termin- 
ology common  to  that  group.  But  even  when  the  press  and  the 
public  give  attention  to  the  question,  we  are  accustomed  to 
accept  the  employers'  definitions  of  the  terms  open  shop  and 
closed  shop,  apparently  without  stopping  to  inquire  whether  or 
not  they  are  correct.  We  ignore  labor's  substitute  terms  which, 
although  admittedly  biased  and  unrepresentative,  should  at  least 
be  given  consideration.  If  we  are  to  be  the  impartial  third 
party  to  industrial  disputes,  should  we  not  learn  how  much 
truth  there  is  in  the  contentions  of  each  of  the  two  other 
parties  and,  if  necessary,  adopt  new  terms  which  are  repre- 
sentative and  which  are  accurately  descriptive?  It  is  in  the 
hope  of  contributing  to  this  end  that  the  writer  has  made  the 
following  analysis.  In  each  case  he  has  sought  the  expressions 
of  the  recognized  leaders  of  both  labor  and  capital  in  order  that 
he  may  present  the  views  of  both  parties  fairly.  Whether  or 
not  the  conclusions  of  this  article  are  accepted,  it  is  high  time 
to  give  attention  to  the  facts  upon  which  these  conclusions  are 
based  in  order  to  find  some  classification  of  terms  which  will  be 
fair  to  both  capital  and  labor  and  intelligible  to  the  public. 

First,  what  are  the  facts  to  be  considered?  Whatever  defini- 
tions we  give  to  the  terms  open  shop  and  closed  shop  we  agree 
that  we  are  trying  to  describe  the  relationship  of  trade  unionism 
to  industry.  Perhaps  the  reason  we  do  not  agree  upon  defini- 
tions is  that  this  relationship  is  too  complex  to  be  fully  described 
by  two  simple  terms.    Some  of  these  conditions  are  as  follows: 

1.  There  is  the  shop  which  chooses  to  employ  none  but 
union  members  because  the  employer  believes  that  the  union  can 
supply  him  with  more  efficient  workmen  than  he  can  secure  in 
any  other  manner. 

2.  Then  there  is  the  shop  which  employs  none  but  union 
members  because  the  employer  fears  to  incur  enmity  of  the 
labor  organization  to  which  his  workmen  belong. 

In  both  of  these  cases  the  employer  sooner  or  later  estab- 
lishes   or    accepts    a    definite    policy   of    employing   only    union 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  23 

members  and  incorporates  this  policy  into  an  agreement  with 
the  union. 

3.  Other  employers,  while  agreeing  with  the  union  upon  the 
terms  of  the  labor  contract,  refuse  to  concede  the  exclusive  em- 
ployment of  union  members.  Such  employers  may  concede  a  defi- 
nite percentage,  may  show  a  preference  for  union  men  when  other 
considerations  are  approximately  equal  (which  may  result  in  a 
shop  with  100  per  cent,  union  membership),  or  may  exercise  a 
preference  for  non-union  men  though  employing  them  at  union 
terms. 

4.  Some  employers,  through  necessity,  deal  with  their  work- 
men only  as  individuals.  This  may  be  either  because  the  work- 
men have  no  union  or,  if  they  have,  because  it  is  weak  and  un- 
representative of  employees  in  that  class  of  work. 

5.  Still  others,  through  choice,  insist  upon  dealing  with 
workmen  only  as  individuals,  yet  do  not  refuse  absolutely  to 
hire  union  members.  Employers  in  this  group  are  not  indifferent 
to  unionism  but  rather  pursue  a  watchful  policy,  using  means  to 
weaken  its  union  when  the  membership  in  the  shop  becomes 
threatening  and  ignoring  the  organization  entirely  when  its  rep- 
resentation in  the  shop  is  too  small  to  cause  concern. 

6.  Then  there  are  employers  who  not  only  refuse  to  deal 
with  unions  but  who  will  not  knowingly  employ  workmen  who 
are  union  members.  They  will  even  dismiss  employees  im- 
mediately upon  learning  that  they  are  members  of  a  labor  organi- 
zation. 

7.  Finally,  the  unions  themselves  occasionally  introduce  fur- 
ther complications  by  refusing  to  permit  their  members  to  work 
in  shops  on  strike  or  in  shops  declared  unfair  for  any  other 
reason. 

Even  such  a  classification  does  not  exhaust  the  possibilities 
for  confusion  in  the  popular  discussions  of  open  shop  versus 
closed  shop.  For  while  it  is  popularly  assumed  that  all  unions 
pursue  the  same  policy  with  respect  to  the  degree  of  control 
they  exercise  over  the  supply  of  men  in  their  trades,  such  is 
not  the  case.  Some  unions  have  no  apprenticeship  regulations 
and  only  nominal  initiation  fees.  They  admit,  without  prejudice, 
any  workman  who  can  demonstrate  his  ability  to  perform  the 
duties  required  in  the  trade.  Other  unions  restrict  their  mem- 
bership by  refusing  to  admit  qualified  workmen  except  upon 
payment  of  extortionate  initiation  fees  which  amount  in  their 
operation  to  an  effective  obstacle  to  union  membership.    This  in 


/ 


24  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

turn  may  mean  at  times  an  equally  effective  bar  to  employment 
at  that  peculiar  trade.  Still  other  unions  limit  the  recruits  to 
their  trades  by  arbitrary  apprenticeship  ratios  which  are  gov- 
erned, more  or  less,  by  the  needs  of  the  trade,  but  which  operate 
to  maintain  a  monopoly  of  labor  for  the  particular  union  mem- 
bers involved.  Finally,  some  unions  carry  the  restriction  of 
apprentices  to  the  extreme  of  limiting  learners  in  the  trade  to 
the  sons  of  union  members. 

These  facts  indicate  the  complexity  of  the  problem  of  union 
relationship  to  industry.  Yet  how  different  is  the  interpretation 
often  given  to  a  discussion  of  this  problem.  The  very  attempt 
to  simplify  a  complex  situation  often  results  in  the  omission  of 
important  considerations.  That  this  is  true  of  the  question  of 
open  shop  versus  closed  shop  will  be  made  clear  by  the  following 
analysis. 

From  the  employers'  point  of  view,  the  closed  shop  is  a  "mo- 
nopoly in  favor  of  the  particular  members  of  the  union  which  is 
a  party  to  the  closed  shop  agreement" :  not  a  "real  monopoly" 
but  one  which  is  artificial  and  arbitrary  because  "outside  its 
ranks  there  is  a  large  supply  of  labor  seeking  employment,  and 
it  can  maintain  its  monopoly  only  by  preventing  this  potential 
supply  from  reaching  its  natural  market  and  coming  in  contact 
with  the  correlative  demand  of  the  employer.  .  .  .  This  preven- 
tion is  accomplished  in  one  way  and  in  one  way  only— by  the 
use  of  force  and  coercion  in  one  form  or  another,  either  to 
keep  the  outsider  from  accepting  employment  or  to  keep  the 
employer   from  accepting  his  services."^ 

Any  employer  who  resists  the  demand  for  a  closed  shop  "is 
said  to  have  an  open  shop" ;  a  shop  which  "is  free  to  all,  to  the 
union  man  as  well  as  the  non-union  man."^ 

Trad.e  unionists,  on  the  contrary,  claim  that  "there  is  no 
closed  shop."  "When  confronted  by  persons  who  persist  in 
speaking,  in  private  and  public,  of  the  'closed  shop,'  the  trade 
unionists  recognize  by  that  sign  that  they  are  dealing  with  an 
enemy,  employing  the  verbal  ammunition  of  an  enemy,  distorting 
facts  as  an  enemy,  and  without  having  the  manliness  and  candor 
of    a    courageous    enemy."''      Open    shops,    according    to    trade 

1  Walter  Drew,  "Closed  Shop  Unionism,"  in  Bulletin  no.  i6.  National 
Association   of   Manufacturers,   p.    4-5. 

2  W.  H.  Pfahler,  in  American  Economic  Association  Publications, 
Third   Series,  vol.    4.   P-    183.    186. 

•Samuel    Gompers.    in    American    Federatiomst,    vol.     18,    p.    118. 


THE   CLOSED   SHOP  25 

unionists,  "are  in  fact  closed  shops  against  union  men  and 
zvomen."*  Or  again,  "In  reality  the  open  shop  means  only  the 
open  door  through  which  the  union  man  goes  out  and  the  non- 
union man  comes  in  to  take  his  place."" 

For  the  most  part  economic  writers  have  adopted  the  employ- 
er^' definitions  of  open  and  closed  shop,  without  stopping  to  in- 
quire whether  or  not  there  may  be  situations  not  covered  by 
these  two  terms.®  Others,  looking  a  little  farther  into  industrial 
relations,  nevertheless  use  the  one  term,  open  shop,  to  describe 
any  one  of  the  following  conditions:  (i)  A  shop  in  which 
"union  men  or  non-union  men  are  hired  indifferently" ;  (2) 
a  shop  "entirely  filled  with  non-union  men"  ;  (3)  a  shop  "open  only 
to  non-union  men."  No  account  is  taken  of  the  shops  which 
could  properly  be  classified  under  neither  open  shop  as  here 
defined  or  the  employers'  definition  of  closed  shop. 

Other  writers,  more  careful  of  their  terminology,  accept  the 
employers'  definition  of  open  shop  but  give  a  new  name  to  the 
condition  described  by  the  trade  unionists  as  an  open  shop  in 
practice.^  In  a  few  instances  attempts  at  a  more  exact  classifica- 
tion have  been  made  by  economic  writers.  Professor  Commons 
has  made  one  such  classification  which  meets  some  of  the  objec- 
tions stated  above.     He  says: 

The  closed  shop  would  be  one  viewed  from  the  side  of  the  contract, 
and  would  be  designated  as  one  which  would  be  closed  against  the  non- 
unionist  by  a  formal  agreement  with  the  union;  the  open  shop  as  one, 
where,  as  far  as  the  agreement  is  concerned,  the  employer  is  free  to 
hire  union  or  non-union  men;  the  union  shop  as  one  where,  irrespective 
of  the  agreement,  the  employer  as  a  matter  of  fact,  has  only  union  men. 
Thus  an  open  shop,  according  to  agreement,  might  be  in  practice  a  union 
shop,  a  mixed  shop  or  even  a  non-union  shop.  The  closed  shop  would, 
of  course,  be  a  union  shop,  but  the  union  shop  might  be  either  closed  or 
open. " 

Marcus  M.  Marks  has  made  a  more  minute  classification  in 
which,  apparently,  he  has  attempted  to  include  all  possible  con- 
ditions of  industrial  relationship  between  labor  and  capital.    His 

*  W.    E.    Bryan,    in   American   Federationist,   vol.    19,   p.    321. 
''Clarence  Darrow,   quoted   in   Current   Literature,   vol.    51,   p.   654. 

^  For  example,  Professor  Taussig,  after  discussing  the  closed  shop  says, 
"The  alternative  is  the  open  shop  in  which  the  employers  deal  with  their 
laborers  individually,  or  at  least  deal  with  them  irrespective  of  their 
being  members  of  the  union."  Principles  of  Economics,  vol.  II,  p.  269. 
Most    writers   of   economic   texts  follow   Taussig   in   this   classification. 

'  C.    W.   Eliot,   Future   of  Trade    Unionism   and   Capitalism,   p.    62-63. 

•  r.  T.  Carlton,  History  and  Problems  of  Organised  Labor,  p.  122, 
defines  open  shop  as  follows:  "An  open  shop  is  one  in  which  union  and 
non-union  men  work,  or  may  work,  side  by  side.  No  discrimination  is 
practiced  against  union  or  non-union  men."  Professor  Carlton  then 
divides  other  shops  into  anti-union  shops  closed  to  union  men,  closed 
shops    with    open    unions,    and    closed    shops    with    closed    unions. 

'  Labor  and  Administration,  p.   89-90. 


26  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

definitions  are  as  follows:  (i)  The  anti-union  shop  where  the 
employer  is  "emphatically  and  frankly  opposed"  to  the  organiza- 
tion of  his  workmen.  He  will  not  knowingly  employ  a  union 
man  and  will  discharge  those  who  join  unions  at  any  time.  (2) 
The  shop  which  is  open  because  there  is  no  union  for  the  work- 
men to  join.  (3)  The  "typical  open  shop"  where  the  employer 
is  indifferent,  neutral,  or  even  friendly  toward  the  union  but 
will  not  grant  it  an  agreement.  Neither  does  he  discriminate 
against  union  members.  (4)  The  open  shop  which  employs  both 
union  and  non-union  workmen  but  where  the  union  either  signs 
an  agreement  with  the  employer  or  reaches  a  mutually  satis- 
factory understanding  with  him.  (5)  The  union  shop,  all  of 
whose  workmen  are  union  men  though  the  employer  may  not 
even  know  of  the  existence  of  the  union.  At  any  rate  he  does 
not  grant  it  recognition.  (6)  The  closed  shop  with  the  open 
union.  The  employer  is  free  to  hire  whomsoever  he  chooses 
provided  they  join  the  union  at  once.  The  union  of  course  re- 
ceives recognition.  (7)  The  closed  shop  with  the  closed  union. 
New  workmen  are  obtained  only  by  application  to  the  business 
agent  of  the  union  and  if  an  employee  loses  standing  with  the 
union  the  employer  agrees  to  discharge  him  upon  the  request 
of  the  union." 

But  why  call  a  shop  "open"  if  the  employer  deliberately 
hires  none  but  non-union  men?  Or  why  speak  of  a  union  shop 
if  the  workers  therein  give  so  little  attention  to  their  organiza- 
tion that  the  employer  does  not  even  know  of  its  existence?  And 
surely  there  is  a  very  great  difference  between  the  "open  shop" 
which  refuses  to  recognize  the  union  and  the  one  which,  while 
hiring  non-union  men  as  well  as  union  men,  gives  the  union  a 
voice  in  the  determination  of  the  conditions  under  which  its 
members  work. 

Furthermore,  we  are  accustomed  to  think  of  the  open  shop 
as  the  typically  American,  man-to-man  method  of  agreement 
upon  the  terms  of  the  labor  contract.  We  picture  the  individual 
employer  discussing  with  the  individual  workman  the  job  in 
question,  each  trying  to  drive  a  good  bargain  in  typical  Ameri- 
can fashion.  But  open  shop,  so-called,  is  often  established,  not 
by  the  action  of  an  individual  employer,  but  by  the  decision  of 
an  employers'  association,  some  of  whose  members  may  even  be 

^'^  Independent.  May  26,  1910.  Even  such  a  detailed  classification  is 
not  exhaustive  for  it  makes  no  mention,  for  example,  of  the  shops  closed 
to  union  men  by  the  union  itself. 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  27 

enjoined  by  court  action  from  exercising  their  individual  wills 
in  determining  relations  with  their  employees,  without  suffering 
severe  indemnities  to  the  association. 

Frequently,  the  employers'  association  supplies  individual  con- 
tracts to  its  members  with  instructions  not  to  hire  any  work- 
men who  refuse  to  sign  them.  A  typical  contract  of  this  nature 
reads  as  follows : 

I,  the  undersigned,  in  consideration  of  the  signing  of  a  protection 
agreement  ...  do  hereby  agree  as  part  of  the  consideration  there- 
of: 

I  shall  not  directly  or  indirectly  counsel,  advise,  participate  or  aid 
in  the  declaration  of  any  strike  against  the  business  of  any  present  or 
future  member  of  said  Association,  nor  in  the  establishment  or  con- 
tinuance thereof,  nor  in  any  measure,  financial  or  otherwise,  designed  to 
make    it   effective.     .    .    ." 

A  part  of  such  individual  contract  or  a  supplementary  con- 
tract may  even  go  farther  in  limiting  the  activity  of  the  indi- 
vidual worker.  In  the  case  cited  above  one  form  of  contract, 
supplied  to  the  employers  by  the  association  with  instructions 
to  require  every  employee  to  sign  it,  read  in  part  as  follows: 
"You  represent  to  us  that  you  are  not  a  union  man  and  agree 
not  to  hereafter  join  any  union  without  our  written  consent."" 

Very  often  too  the  practice  of  open-shop  employers'  associa- 
tions in  maintaining  permanent  employment  bureaus  or  agencies 
creates  an  effective  bar  to  the  active  union  man.  In  speaking 
of  the  requirements  of  an  applicant  seeking  employment  through 
such  a  bureau  one  writer  who  is  in  sympathy  with  the  method 
says: 

He  is  required  to  give  a  complete  record  of  himself,  including  the 
reasons  why  he  left  the  shops  where  he  was  formerly  employed.  All  the 
facts  about  him  are  put  on  a  card  which  is  kept  in  permanent  card 
catalogue.  The  secretary  of  the  agency  makes  an  investigation  of  the 
man's  record.  ...  In  this  way  the  employers  find  out  who  the  dis 
turbers    are,   and   they   are   kept   out   of   the   shops,  ^s 

These  examples  could  be  multiplied  many  times  to  show  that 
the  open  shop  is  not  always  free  to  all,  the  unionist  as  well  as 
the  non-unionist;  and  that  on  the  other  hand  the  closed  shop 
is  not  always  kept  closed  by  the  use  of  force  or  some  form  of 
coercion.  Neither  is  it  true  that  all  shops  recognizing  the 
union  are  kept  open  by  the  union  nor  that  all  open  shops  are 
closed    to    union    members.      It    appears    quite    clear,    therefore, 

"  H.    E.    Hoagland.     Collective   Bargaining   in    the    Lithographic   Indus- 
try,  p.    95-6. 
«7&td.  p.   96. 
"  J.   F.   Marcosson,   in    World's   Work,  vol.   II,   p.   6963, 


28  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

that  we  must  reject  the  classification  of  open  shop  and  closed 
shop  if  we  are  really  desirous  of  finding  names  which  are 
accurately  descriptive. 

In  the  early  history  of  unionism  in  this  country  the  terms 
open  shop  and  closed  shop  were  not  used.  Then  shops  were 
either  "union"  or  "non-union":  union  if  the  organization  had  a 
voice  in  establishing  working  conditions;  non-union  if  it  did 
not."  Occasionally  non-union  shops  were  designated  as  scab  or 
rat  shops  if  the  employer  kept  union  men  out.  For  the  most 
part  union  shops  were  open  to  non-unionists  as  well  as  to  union 
members  for  the  unions  of  those  early  days  had  a  naive  idea 
that  they  could  legislate  for  the  entire  trade,  whether  or  not  they 
controlled  the  supply  of  labor  in  the  trade. 

Gradually  the  unions  learned  the  necessity  of  bringing  pres- 
sure to  bear  upon  recalcitrant  employers  and  hence  they  began 
to  refuse  to  permit  their  members  to  work  in  shops  on  strike. 
The  "closed"  shop  was  one  closed  to  union  members.^"  It 
became  an  "open"  shop  when  the  union  declared  the  strike  off 
and  permitted  its  members  to  return  to  work.  Somewhat  later 
the  union,  upon  winning  a  strike,  stipulated  in  the  terms  of 
peace  that  the  shop  be  closed  to  non-unionists.  The  employers 
seized  this  conception  of  closed  shop  unionism  and  have  since 
made  it  the  chief  point  of  attack  in  their  anti-union  propaganda. 

The  publicity  given  to  the  open  shop  movement  of  the  past 
fifteen  years  has  made  it  appear  that  there  are  but  two  kinds  of 
shops  to  be  considered :  the  closed  shop  which  keeps  out  the 
non-union  workman,  and  all  others,  collectively  called  open 
shops.^®  At  the  time  the  terms  were  first  used  they  may  have 
been  not  far  from  accurate  in  their  decription  of  existing  con- 
ditions. But  certainly  since  that  time  the  methods  used  by  some 
of  the  so-called  open  shop  employers'  associations  have  made 
necessary  a  new  classification  of  terms  to  fit  present  conditions. 
The  Federal  Commission  on  Industrial  Relations  has  recognized 
this  need  and  it  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  one  resolution 
which  the  commission  adopted  by  unanimous  vote  read  as 
follows: 

Whereas  the  commission  finds  that  the  terms  "open  shop"  and  "closed 
shop"    have    each    a    double    meaning,    and    should    never    be    used    without 

^*  I.    F.    Stockton,    Closed    Shop    in   American    Trade    Unions,     p.    14. 

«  Ihid.  p.   14. 

^^  The  open-shop  movement  has  attained  such  proportions  that  open- 
shop  schools  and  open-shop  employment  bureaus  are  very  common.  Open- 
shop  literature  is  voluminous  in  amount.  We  even  hear  of  Los  Angeles, 
and  Washington  as  model  open-shop  cities. 


THE  CLOSED    SHOP  29 

telling  which  meaning  is  intended,  the  double  meaning  consisting  in  that 
they  may  mean  either  union  or  non-union:  Therefore,  for  the  purposes 
of  this  report,   be  it 

Resolved,  That  the  Commission  on  Industrial  Relations  will  not  use 
the  terms  "opnen  shop"  and  "closed  shop,"  but  in  lieu  thereof  will  use 
"union    shop"    and    "non-union   shop." 

The  union  shop  is  a  shop  where  the  wages,  the  hours  of  labor,  and 
the  general  conditions  of  employment  are  fixed  by  a  joint  agreement  be- 
tween  the  employer   and  trade   union. 

The  non-union  shop  is  one  where  no  joint  agreement  exists,  and 
where  the  wages,  the  hours  of  labor,  and  the  general  conditions  of  em- 
ployment are  fixed  by  the  employer  without  cooperation  with  any  trade 
union.  " 

This  distinction  is  essentially  that  made  by  trade  unionists 
themselves.  In  a  recent  editorial  in  the  American  Federationist 
Mr.  Gompers  outlines  the  case  as  follows: 

When  an  employer  forms  a  treaty  with  the  union,  formal  or  tacit, 
his  shop  is  union,  even  if  the  union  consents  for  the  time  being  not  to 
disturb  any  non-union  men  among  the  employees.  If  the  employer  will 
not  treat  with  the  union  or  pay  the  union  scale,  his  shop  is  non-union 
though  among  its  employees  may  be  union  members.  The  deciding  point 
as  to  whether  a  force  of  employees  is  union  or  non-union  is  the  em- 
ployer's   actual    recognition    of   union    regulations.  " 

Are  not  the  terms  union  shop  and  non-union  shop  more  accu- 
rately descriptive  than  the  terms  open  shop  and  closed  shop? 
It  is  not  the  presence  of  union  members  in  a  shop  that  is 
important  but  rather  their  activity  in  securing  or  demanding 
a  voice  in  the  determination  of  the  conditions  under  v^hich  they 
v^ork. 

Should  we  adopt  this  classification,  there  would  be  two  sets 
of  distinctions  to  be  kept  in  mind.  First,  that  between  the  union 
shop  and  the  non-union  shop :  the  union  shop  being  one  in 
which  the  union  is  a  party  to  the  wage  bargain  and  the  non- 
union shop  being  one  in  which  the  employer  refuses  to  deal  with 
labor  in  its  collective  capacity.  Thus  far  we  accept  the  classifi- 
cation suggested  by  the  trade  unionists.  But  there  is  a  second 
distinction,  equally  important,  which  the  trade  unionists  are  not 
so  ready  to  admit.  The  union  shop  may  be  either  closed  or 
open.  Most  unions  accept  the  principle  at  least  of  the  closed 
union  shop.  Whether  or  not  they  insist  upon  its  enforcement 
depends  upon  expediency.  In  a  few  instances,  notably  in  the 
transportation  industry,  open  union  shop  seems  to  operate  fairly 
successfully.  Here  the  whole  competitive  field  is  covered  by 
the  agreement.  The  association  of  employers  and  the  union  fix, 
by  joint  action,  the  terms  of  employment  for  every  position 
within  this  field,  whether  occupied  by  union  members  or  non- 

^"^  Final    Report,    p.    265. 

"^^  American    Federationist,   vol.    17,    p.    885. 


30  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

unionists.  The  conditions  essential  to  the  success  of  the  open 
union  shop  are:  (i)  The  presence  of  a  strong  and  well  dis- 
ciplined organization  on  each  side;  (2)  the  same  sc^le  of  work 
and  wages  for  both  unionist  and  non-unionists;  and  (3)  the 
settlement  of  all  complaints,  whether  affecting  union  members 
or  other  workmen,  by  joint  action  of  representatives  of  the 
union  and  the  employers'  association.  In  other  words  the  union 
must  act  as  the  agent  of  all  workers  and  must  be  protected 
from   undercutting  by  non-members. 

The  non-union  shop  may  also  be,  temporarily  at  least,  either 
open  or  closed.  If  the  employer  does  not  fear  the  growth  of 
unionism,  he  may  not  discriminate  against  union  members  in 
hiring  workmen,  even  though  he  refuses  to  deal  with  them  as 
such.  On  the  other  hand  the  employer  may  choose  to  keep 
union  members  out  of  his  shop.  In  this  case  it  seems  that  the 
only  proper  term  to  apply  is  closed  non-union  shop.^^  The 
employer  is  generally  opposed  to  the  closed  union  shop  and 
almost  never  grants  it  voluntarily.  When  he  is  forced  to  grant 
such  terms  to  the  union  he  often  considers  the  agreement 
merely  a  truce  to  be  broken  when  opportunity  offers.  The 
temporary  locus  of  the  balance  of  advantage  determines 
whether  or  not  closed  union  shop  shall  operate.  In  many  in- 
stances prosperous  times  bring  closed  union  shop  agreements. 
In  succeeding  dull  periods  the  aggressive  union  members  are 
dismissed  and  the  remainder  give  up  their  affiliation  in  return 
for  the  retention  of  their  jobs. 

In  passing  judgment  upon  the  closed  union  shop  we  should 
distinguish  carefully  between  the  closed  union  shop  maintained 
by  the  open  union  and  that  maintained  by  the  closed  union. 
Obtaining  membership  in  an  open  union  is  analogous  to  secur- 
ing citizenship  papers  in  a  democracy.  In  both  no  groups  are 
excluded  except  those  whose  members  cannot  attain  the  stand- 
ards set  for  the  entire  organization.  In  each  case  individuals 
are  excluded  whose  past  conduct  has  been  inimical  to  the  wel- 
fare of  the  group.  And  in  both  the  democracy  and  the  open 
union  qualified  applicants  for  membership  are  admitted  as  soon 
as  they  satisfy  the  minimum   requirements  of  admission.     The 

"  The  same  name  would  necessarily  be  applied,  of  course,  to  the 
shop  which  is  temporarily  closed  to  union  members  by  the  union  itself 
on  account  of  strike  or  other  disagreement  with  the  employer.  However, 
these  cases  are  relatively  rare  and  can  be  described  when  necessary  by 
a  statement   of  the  conditions   surrounding  them. 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  31 

closed  union  shop  maintained  by  the  open  union  has  many  sup- 
porters among  economists  and  other  members  of  the  so-called 
third  party  to  industrial   disputes.^ 

Closed  union  shop  maintained  by  a  closed  union,  on  the 
other  hand,  is  wholly  indefensible  from  the  standpoint  of  social 
judgment.  It  operates  for  the  benefit  of  the  few  and  those 
few  not  always  the  most  competent  or  the  most  deserving. 
Trade  unionists  themselves  recognize  the  indefensibility  of  such 
a  situation  and  for  the  most  part  deny  the  existence  of  the 
closed  union.  It  is  undoubtedly  true  that  the  practice  of  pat- 
rimony to  keep  down  the  numbers  in  a  trade  and  the  mainte^ 
nance  of  prohibitive  initiation  fees  or  other  artificial  restrictions 
upon  the  entrance  of  competent  workmen  into  a  given  industry 
are  losing  ground  among  union  leaders  themselves. 

Likewise  the  closed  non-union  shop  is  equally  indefensible 
unless  we  insist  upon  a  very  narrow  interpretation  of  the  sacred- 
ness  of  private  property  and  the  right  of  its  owner  to  do  with 
it  as  he  wills.  The  spy  systems  used  by  some  employers  not 
only  drive  out  of  employment  the  trouble  making  agitator,  but 
they  keep  all  workmen  in  a  state  of  mind  which  can  hardly  be 
described  as  fitting  for  liberty  loving  citizens  of  a  free  country. 
Employers  agree  that  the  closed  non-union  shop  is  indefensible. 
At  least  they  are  accustomed  to  deny  its  existence.  It  has  been 
a  very  effective  weapon  in  the  hands  of  employers  who  have 
wished  to  establish  what  they  have  called  open  shop.  It  is 
harder  to  detect  than  the  closed  shop  maintained  by  the  closed 
union  for  its  success  depends  to  a  large  extent  upon  its  secrecy, 
other  pretexts  being  used  as  excuses  for  the  dismissal  of  active 
union  members. 

Open  shops,  whether  union  or  non-union,  are  essentially 
unstable.^^  The  union  employees  continually  attempt  to  organize 
the  non-union  workers  and  to  establish  closed  union  shop.  The 
employer  is  equally  anxious  to  prevent  the  complete  unionization 
of  his  shop  and  will  often  resort  to  dismissal  of  active  unionists 
if  their  activity  seems  to  promise  success. 

2°  Professor  Seligman,  for  example,  after  expressing  himself  as  favor- 
able to  trade  unions,  says  that  unless  the  condition  described  here  as 
closed  union  shop  is  maintained,  the  union  itself  will  often  cease  to 
exist.  Principles  of  Economics,  p.  441.  Professor  Fetter,  on  the  other 
hand,  opposes  closed  union  shop  in  any  case  and  relies  upon  public  sym- 
pathy to  secure  for  labor  higher  wages  when  necessary.  Principles  of 
Economics,   p.   250. 

"  The  transportation  industry  is  apparently  an  exception  to  this  rult 
for  the  reasons  given  above. 


32  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

In  conclusion,  the  writer  believes  that  because  our  present 
use  of  the  terms  open  shop  and  closed  shop  is  misleading  and 
is  not  accurately  descriptive  of  industrial  relations  in  modern 
industry,  we  should  eliminate  these  terms  from  economic  discus- 
sions. As  substitute  terms  we  should  adopt  union  shop  to 
describe  the  establishment  in  which  the  union  is  a  party  to  the 
wage  bargain  and  non-union  shop  to  describe  the  establishment 
which  refuses  to  deal  with  labor  organizations.  The  closed 
union  shop  would  then  correspond  to  what  is  now  called  the 
closed  shop.  While  to  avoid  the  confusion  which  arises  under 
the  present  use  of  the  term  open  shop,  we  would  use  three 
terms,  open  union  shop,  open  non-union  shop,  and  closed  non- 
union shop,  according  to  the  degree  of  recognition  given  the 
union  by  the  employer  and  the  extent  of  his  efforts  to  keep 
union  members  out  of  his  establishment. 


THE  OPEN  VERSUS  THE  CLOSED  SHOP ' 

The  first  essential  in  this  discussion  is  a  definition  of  terms. 
By  closed  shop  I  understand  an  establishment  in  which  only 
union  members  are  employed  in  those  occupations  in  which 
unions  exist.  By  an  open  shop  I  understand  an  establishment 
in  which  membership  or  non-membership  in  a  union  is  not 
considered  either  in  the  employment  or  the  discharge  of  work- 
ers. In  an  open  shop  no  preference  is  indicated  for  union  or 
non-union  employees.  The  greatest  difficulty  in  this  whole 
matter  is  that  many  establishments  are  advertised  as  "open 
shop"  in  which  union  members  are  not  allowed  or  are  tolerated 
only  on  condition  that  they  remain  inactive  in  relation  to  la- 
bor organization. 

To  be  accurate,  we  must  recognize,  not  two,  but  five  differ- 
ent kinds  of  "shops,"  with  reference  to  their  attitude  toward 
trade  unions: 

1.  The  closed   shop — exclusively  union. 

2.  The  preferential  (union)  shop — union  members  receiving 
preference  in  employment  and  layoff. 

3.  The  preferential  non-union  shop — union  members  admit- 
ted in  small  numbers  and  restrained  from  organization  activity. 

4.  The  non-union  shop — no  union  members  employed;  often 

1  Rev.  F.  Ernest  Johnson,  Research  Secretary,  Federal  Council  of  the 
Churches   of   Christ   in    America.     Industry.     2:10.     October    i,    1920. 


THE   CLOSED   SHOP  33 

falsely  called  "open  shop";  more  appropriately  called  "employ- 
ers' closed  shop." 

5.  The  open  shop — no  preference  shown. 

If  the  term,  "open  shop" 'is  used  in  the  strict  and  original 
sense  I  am  in  hearty  accord  with  the  statement  which  Indus- 
try has  been  promulgating:  "The  open  shop  gives  all  work- 
ers, regardless  of  race,  color,  politics,  religion  or  fraternal  af- 
filiations, a  chance  to  work  side  by  side."  The  true  open  shop 
not  only  represents  the  sounder  industrial  policy,  but  is  ethical- 
ly right.  Coercion  in  the  matter  of  union  membership  is  un- 
democratic and  intolerable  whether  it  comes  from  one  side  or 
the  other.  It  is  a  mistake,  however,  to  add  that  the  constitu- 
tion guarantees  freedom  in  this  matter.  The  constitution  is 
silent  on  the  subject  and  I  know  of  no  provision  in  it  which 
could  be  so  interpreted.  We  are  dependent,  rather,  upon  our 
sense  of  justice. 

It  is  frequently  claimed  that  ultimately  the  only  alternative 
to  a  non-union  shop  is  a  closed  shop,  since  labor  will  insist  on 
control  wherever  it  is  allowed  a  free  hand  in  organizing.  This 
might  have  been  claimed  with  some  reason  prior  to  the  Pres- 
ident's First  Industrial  Conference  of  last  year.  In  that  con- 
ference, however,  as  has  been  publicly  related,  the  labor  group, 
which  represented  organized  labor  in  a  thoroughly  official  way, 
definitely  agreed  to  abandon  the  "closed  shop"  principle  in  re- 
turn for  the  mere  right  on  the  part  of  the  unions  to  represent 
their  constituency  in  bargaining  with  employers.  The  em- 
ployers refused  all  concessions,  however,  and  for  that  reason 
the  closed  shop  issue  continues  to  be  raised.  It  seems  suffi- 
ciently clear  that  the  main  contention  of  organized  labor  is  not 
against  the  open  shop  but  against  the  non-union  shop  and 
what  I  have  called  the  preferential  non-union  shop.  The 
strong  opposition  to  the  open  shop  as  characterized  by  Indus- 
try comes  from  employers  who  insist  on  preventing  their 
workers   from   organizing. 

The  prevailing  philosophy  among  employers  is  still,  I 
should  say,  individualistic  to  the  point  of  insistence  upon  the 
employer's  right  to  run  his  shop  in  his  own  way.  In  politics 
that  philosophy  has  given  place,  at  least  in  theory,  to  democ- 
racy. From  the  point  of  view  of  Christian  ethics  it  is  dis- 
credited also  as  applied  to  industry.  The  most  ardent  believer 
in  labor  rights  might  well  hesitate  to  say  that  the  workers 
in    everv   industrial   establishment   should   be   unionized.     There 


34  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

are  many  establishments  in  which  all  attempts  at  unionization 
would  be  thwarted  by  the  workers  themselves.  But  by  what 
reason  is  the  right  of  this  particular  group  to  remain  out  of 
the  union  respected  and  advertised  while  the  right  of  another 
group  to  affiliate  is  denied?  A  principle  that  is  vaUd  works 
in  all  directions.  If  democracy  is  to  be  taken  at  all  seriously 
the  ethical  obligation  of  the  employer  would  seem  to  be  clear; 
he  must  give  his  workers  freedom  to  choose  their  form  of  or- 
ganization, stipulating  only  that  as  he  refrains  from  coercing 
them  so  they  must  avoid  coercing  their  fellow  employees.  If 
he  dislikes  or  distrusts  the  union  he  has  one  very  simple 
course  open  to  him — he  may  undertake  to  offer  his  employees 
an  alternative  with  which  they  will  be  better  satisfied.  But  if 
he  chooses  for  them,  and  tries  to  impose  his  will  upon  them 
he  is  to  that  extent  an  autocrat  and  the  present  currents  of 
industrial  life  are  likely  to  presently  sweep  him  aside. 

Ethical  consistency  demands  that  labor  unions  clamoring 
for  the  closed  shop  and  employers  maintaining  shops  closed 
against  the  union  should  fall  under  the  same  condemnation. 
Where  judgment  is  not  thus  impartially  given  labor  naturally 
denounces  the  advocacy  of  the  "open  shop"  as  fraudulent  and 
pernicious. 

THE  OPEN  SHOP' 

When  William  H.  Barr,  President  of  the  National  Found- 
ers' Association,  describes  the  progress  of  the  open-shop  cam- 
paign as  "a  stimulant  to  the  patriotism  of  every  one,"  he  is 
dealing  in  snivelling  hypocrisy  at  a  time  when  honesty  and 
frankness  in  all  economic  matters  were  never  more  necessary. 

The  champions  of  the  open  shop  are  not  actuated  by  any 
patriotic  impulse  whatever.  They  believe  that  the  open  shop 
is  more  profitable  to  themselves  than  the  closed  shop  and  that 
to  destroy  the  unions  would  put  money  in  their  pockets.  That 
is  all  there  is  to  the  controversy.  The  open  shop  advocates 
wear  a  mask  of  patriotism  because  they  are  afraid  to  meet 
the  economic  issue. 

A  nation-wide  campaign  has  been  inaugurated  against  or- 
ganized labor.  The  plans  were  all  laid  during  the  Presidential 
contest,  and  the  Harding  majority  was  interpreted  as  evidence 
that   public   opinion  has    swung  holly  to   the    side   of    reaction. 

1  Editorial.     New   York   World.     November   19,   1920. 


THE  CLOSED   SHOP  35 

Associations  of  manufacturers  and  their  professional  walking 
delegates  have  been  boasting  that  the  Harding  administration 
would  be  an  open  shop  administration,  and,  curiously  enough, 
union  labor  helped  to  furnish  the  votes  that  provided  the 
Harding   majority. 

Undoubtedly  public  sentiment  is  not  at  the  present  over- 
friendly  to  organized  labor,  and  organized  labor  itself  is 
largely  to  blame.  To  say  that  it  has  behaved  badly  during  the 
last  two  years  is  to  state  the  case  with  extreme  moderation. 
In  many  industries  it  has  been  a  bold  and  shameless  profiteer, 
arbitrarily  raising  wages  beyond  any  reasonable  limit  and  de- 
liberately stifling  production.  In  other  instances  it  has  fol- 
lowed such  corrupt  and  venal  leadership  as  the  Lockwood 
committee  investigation  has  disclosed  in  the  building  trades  of 
New  York,  where  crooked  labor  bosses  were  in  partnership' 
with  crooked   contractors  to  plunder   builders  and  rent-payers. 

It  cannot  be  said  that  all  organized  labor  has  abused  its 
power,  but  there  has  been  enough  of  it  to  create  a  strong  pop- 
ular prejudice  against  the  unions.  The  attitude  of  many  of 
the  labor  leaders  has  been  the  old  familiar  public-be-damned 
attitude  that  Wall  Street  used  to  assume  before  it  learned  its 
lesson,  and  the  open-shop  propagandists  are  now  engaged  in 
capitalizing  for  their  own  pockets  the  pubHc  reaction  against 
trades-union  despotism. 

As  a  matter  of  principle,  there  is  much  to  be  said  in  fa- 
vor of  the  open  shop,  but  we  should  prefer  to  have  it  come 
from  the  non-union  men  themselves.  The  organized  employer 
advocates  of  the  open  shop  are  not  concerned  at  all  with 
principle,  however  vociferously  they  profess  to  be.  What 
they  want  is  a  labor  market  in  which  they  can  dictate  wages, 
hours  of  employment  and  working  conditions,  regardless  of 
the  social  consequences  of  such  economic  tyranny.  They  want 
to  treat  labor  as  part  of  the  raw  materials  of  their  factories, 
to  be  bought  at  their  own  price  and  used  as  they  see  fit.  That 
is  all  there  is  to  the  organized  campaign  in  behalf  of  the  open 
shop,  which  increases  in  confidence  as  industrial  conditions  be- 
come more  unsettled. 

The  attitude  of  its  advocates  is  well  illustrated  by  further 
remarks  of  the  President  of  the  National  Founders'  Associa- 
tion when  he  demanded  the  "complete  elimination"  of  the  la- 
bor clauses  from  the  covenant  of  the  League  of  Nations.  As 
it  happens,  these  clauses  are   not  part   of  the  covenant :   they 


36  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

are  part  of  the  treaty  of  peace,  and  they  represent  the  most 
enlightened  thought  of  the  world  in  regard  to  the  international 
relations  of  labor.  Nothing  could  better  define  the  real  aims 
of  the  open  shop  propaganda  than  its  avowed  antagonism  to 
the  labor   section  of   the  Treaty  of  Versailles. 

An  organized  and  well-financed  open  shop  campaign  can 
create  a  great  deal  of  industrial  trouble  in  the  United  States 
and  add  immeasurably  to  the  difficulties  of  reconstruction,  but 
it  will  never  succeed  except  by  wrecking  the  industrial  fabric 
of  the  country,  because  there  is  no  real  honesty  and  sincerity 
back  of  it.  There  is  nothing  back  of  it  but  greed  and  sordid- 
ness,  and  in  the  long  run  greed  and  sordidness  canot  dictate 
the  economic  policies  of  the  American  people. 


"OPEN"  SHOPS  AND  OTHERS^ 

The  industrial  platform  of  the  Chamber  of  Commerce  of 
the  United  States  adopted  by  almost  a  unanimous  vote  is 
an  assertion  of  the  employer's  position  rather  than  a  very 
substantial  contribution  to  the  solution  of  real  problems  in  in- 
dustrial relationships.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  largest 
negative  vote — 54,  against  an  affiiTnative  vote  of  1568 — was 
cast  on  the  question  of  "outside"  representation  of  labor.  The 
platform's  ninth   "principle"   embodying  it  reads : — 

When,  in  the  establishment  or  adjustment  of  employment  relations, 
the  employer  and  his  employees  do  not  deal  individually,  but  by  mutual 
consent,  such  dealing  is  conducted  by  either  party  through  representa- 
tives, it  is  proper  for  the  other  party  to  ask  that  these  representatives 
shall  not  be  chosen  or  controlled  by,  or  in  such  dealing  in  any  degree 
represent,    any    outside   group   or   interest   in   the   question   at   issue. 

This  seems  to  be  a  declaration  for  the  "shop"  union,  as 
against  the  affiliated  union;  that  is,  for  an  interpretation  of 
collective  bargaining  in  sharp  contrast  with  that  of  organized 
labor  in  general,  of  many  publicists  and  of  the  second  national 
industrial  conference.  It  is  a  decided  modification  of  the 
"principle"  in  favor  of  "adequate  means  satisfactory  both  to 
the  employer  and  his  employees,  and  voluntarily  agreed  to  by 
them,"  for  discussion  and  adjustment  of  employment  relations. 

The  platform's  definition  of  open  shop  operation — "the 
right  of  employer  and  employee  to  enter  into  and  determine  the 
conditions    of    employment    relations    with    each    other" — leaves 

» Editorial,    Springfield    (Mass.)    Republican.    August    4,    1920. 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  Z7 

something  to  be  desired.  Some  economists,  indeed,  as  well  as 
some  labor  leaders,  deplore  the  use  of  the  terms  "closed  shop" 
and  "open  shop,"  as  misleading,  preferring  to  speak  of  union 
and  non-union  shops,  meaning  by  the  former  term  shops  in 
which  labor  unions  are  consulted,  or  bargained  with,  in  respect 
to  wages,  hours,  etc.,  and  by  the  latter  those  in  which  the  un- 
ion  is  not   recognized. 

These  terms  can  be  divided  into  open  and  closed  union 
shops,  in  the  latter  of  which  only  union  members  are  admit- 
ted, and  open  and  closed  non-union  shops,  in  the  latter  of 
which  no  union  members  are  admitted.  Again  there  are 
closed  union  shops  with  open  unions,  admitting  applicants 
freely  upon  conformity  with  simply  requirements,  and  closed 
union  shops  with  closed  unions,  or  unions  which  admit  to 
membership  under  conditions  that  are  practically  prohibitive. 
Little  ingenuity  is  required  to  conceive  of  other  variations,  and 
quite  as  important  is  the  fact  that  circumstances  alter  cases  so 
that  nominal  shop  conditions  are  often  unlike  the  real  condi- 
tions, while  in  many  shops  conditions  are  constantly  changing 
as  the  union  or  non-union  influences  vary  in   strength. 

The  tendency  of  a  union  shop  is  toward  becoming  practic- 
ally a  closed  union  shop,  or  closed  shop,  as  the  term  is  often 
employed.  Given  recognition  of  the  union  and  agreement  up- 
on wage  scales  and  working  conditions  affecting  all  the  em- 
ployees of  the  trade  within  the  establishment,  It  is  easy  to  see 
that  the  non-union  employee  becomes  a  beneficiary  of  an  organ- 
ization to  which  he  is  not  a  contributor.  The  lines  of  least 
resistance  would  ordinarily . lead  him  to  join  the  union,  if  it 
were  "open,"  as  most  unions  are.  A  concerted  fight  of  em- 
ployers against  the  closed  shop,  under  such  circumstances,  is 
regarded  by  labor  leaders  as  really  a  fight  against  the  union 
itself — a  fight  for  a  non-union  shop,  which  may  or  may  not 
be  "closed." 

Labor  unionism  has  passed  beyond  the  point  where  the 
issue  can  be  regarded  as  sharply  cut  between  unionism  and 
non-unionism.  The  conflict  is  rather  over  possible  abuses  of  a 
generally  accepted  principle  or  unjustified  resistance  to  its  ap- 
plication. Revolutionary  labor  theories  of  the  irreconcilable 
quality  of  the  relationships  of  employer  and  employee,  and  old- 
fashioned  resistance  by  employers  to  the  organization  of  em- 
ployees in  affiliation  with  "outsiders"  are  twin  obstacles  to 
harmonious  adjustment. 


38  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

OPENING  GUNS  IN  THE  OPEN-SHOP  WAR^ 

Shots  that  will  be  heard— if  not  around  the  world,  at  least 
throughout  the  length  and  breadth  of  the  land — have  been  fired 
in  the  open  shop  war  which  has  been  looming  for  months  and 
whose  preliminaries  were  discust  in  these  columns  a  few  weeks 
ago.  The  fight  is  on  in  two  important  industries — steel  and 
clothing.  After  all  the  revelations  brought  out  by  the  Lockwood 
Committee  in  New  York  erf  extortion  and  blackmail  by  labor 
leaders  trying  to  force  the  closed  shop,  comes  the  news  that 
the  Bethlehem  Steel  Company  is  not  only  following  the  open 
shop  gospel  itself,  but  is  steadily  following  the  policy  of  selling 
no  steel  to  builders  who  will  not  adhere  to  the  open  shop  prin- 
ciple. In  the  men's  and  boys'  clothing  trade  employers  have 
broken  with  the  union  in  New  York  and  Boston;  they  have 
insisted  on  lower  wages,  the  piece-work  system,  open  shop  con- 
ditions, and  greater  freedom  to  "hire  and  fire,"  and  they  have 
issued  statements  accusing  the  unions  of  "Sovietism."  The 
workers,  in  turn,  have  demanded  a  joint  survey  of  wage-con- 
ditions as  preliminary  to  any  readjustment,  and  they  have 
charged  the  manufacturers  with  "attempting  to  take  advantage 
of  existing  conditions  to  return  to  old-time  sweat-shop  con- 
ditions." Some  newspaper  writers  find  it  hard  to  decide 
whether  the  cessation  of  work  in  this  industry  is  a  strike  or  a 
lockout.  And  since  the  open  shop  is  here  but  one  of  several 
issues,  many  of  which  are  not  clearly  defined,  the  press  in 
general  prefer  to  await  further  developments  before  discussing 
the  precise  bearing  of  this  particular  labor  battle  upon  the  open 
shop  movement.  But  when  Eugene  G.  Grace,  president  of 
the  Bethlehem  Steel  Company,  admits  on  the  witness-stand 
that  his  great  concern  has  for  months  been  forcing  customers 
to  employ  non-union  labor  or  go  without  steel,  editors  generally 
admit  that  the  open  shop  war  is  on  in  earnest;  and  it  must 
be  added  that  to  a  remarkable  degree  they  seem  to  unite  in 
declaring  that  the    Steel  Company  has   gone  too    far. 

Mr.  Grace's  admissions  were  brought  out  piecemeal  in  the 
course  of  a  long  examination  by  Samuel  Untermyer,  counsel  for 
the  Lockwood  Committee  and  incidentally  the  largest  individual 
stockholder   of   Bethlehem    steel.     Mr.   Grace   made   a   point   of 

»  Literary  Digest.    68:12-13-     January   i,    1921. 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  39 

avoiding  definite  expressions  of  fact  or  opinion,  but  at  the  con- 
clusion of  the  examination,  so  the  New  York  World  sums  it  up, 
the  admission  had  been  forced  "that  he,  personally,  the  Beth- 
lehem Steel  Company,  the  Bethlehem's  subsidiaries,  and  prac- 
tically all  the  steel  interests  of  the  country  are  endeavoring  to 
kill  off  union  labor  and  to  create  non-union  shops  if  human 
ingenuity  can  do  it."  The  day  before,  building  contractors  had 
told  hov^  they  had  been  working  as  "union"  organizations  and 
found  themselves  unable  to  continue  buying  steel  direct  from 
the  fabricators.  They  testified  that  their  personal  appeals  to  the 
heads  of  the  Bethlehem  Steel  Company  were  in  vain,  that  they 
were  given  to  understand  that  unless  they  continued  on  a  non- 
union basis  they  could  get  no  steel,  and  that  in  some  cases 
they  were  compelled  to  let  open  shop  erectors  do  steel  work  for 
them  at  a  considerable  increase  in  cost.  An  "iron  league"  has 
been  formed  of  erectors  who  hold  to  the  open  shop  policy,  and, 
according  to  these  witnesses,  its  members  have  no  difficulty 
whatsoever  in  getting  steel  from  the  United  States  Steel  Cor- 
poration, Bethlehem,  and  other  large  fabricators.  Building  in 
New  York  is  said  to  have  been  made  more  costly  by  these 
conditions  and  to  have  been  held  up  seriously.  Moreover,  as 
the  New  York  Times  sums  up  part  of  this  testimony — 

Robert  P.  Brindell,  of  the  Building  Trades  Council,  benefited  by  the 
"open  shop"  war  of  the  steel  fabricators.  Since  the  Iron  League  refused 
to  permit  steel  to  be  put  up  except  under  open-shop  conditions,  Brindell 
was  able  to  threaten  strikes  on  the  charge  that  non-union  men  were  do- 
ing the  steelwork.  In  this  way  he  levied  tribute  on  builders  for  per- 
mission to  have  the  steelwork  continue  to  go  up  under  open-shop  con- 
ditions. 

When  Mr.  Grace  was  asked  what  he  thought  of  the  situation 
created  by  the  Bethlehem  open-shop  pohcy  he  answered:  "I 
think  it  is  the  proper  thing  to  protect, the  open-shop  principle." 
The  next  day  the  answering  shot  came  from  the  union-labor 
ranks.  Samuel  Gompers  reminded  newly  elected  union  officials 
of  the  necessity  for  standing  loyally  by  the  labor  movement,  par- 
ticularly at  a  time  "when  there  is  so  much  effort  made  in  the 
direction  of  reaction  and  the  destruction  of  the  labor  movement, 
when  the  challenge  has  been  thrown  to  labor  by  employers  as 
it  has  been  for  the  last  few  days.  American  labor  accepts  this 
challenge." 

When  Mr,  Grace  says  that  "any  character  of  relations  or 
association  to  support  and  protect  the  open-shop  principle  of 


40  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

giving  service  by  any  character  of  laboring  man  in  this  country 
is  a  good  thing,"  he  has  the  full  editorial  approval  of  the  Buffalo 
Commercial,  which  says : 

It  is  just  as  unfair  to  condemn  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
for  refusing  to  sell  goods  to  the  Russian  Soviet  Republic  as  to  condemn 
the  United  States  Steel  Corporation  and  the  Bethlehem  Steel  Company 
for  declining  to  sell  fabricated  steel  to  closed-shop  builders.  The  reasons 
for  refusing  to  enter  into  relations  with  the  Bolsheviki  are  exactly  the 
same  as  exist  in  the  steel  business.  The  Russian  "Reds"  have  been  try- 
ing to  spread  their  propaganda  throughout  this  country.  They  have  been 
instigating  revolutionary  movements  wherever  possible  with  the  intention 
of  undermining  and  blowing  up  our  democracy.  A  year  ago  last  Sep- 
tember, union  labor  under  the  leadership  of  Foster,  the  syndicalist,  and 
Fitzpatrick,  the  Chicago  radical,  aided  and  abetted  by  the  American  Fed- 
eration of  Labor,  sought  to  get  control  of  the  steel  industry  in  America 
with  the  view  of  ultimately  extending  their  power  over  every  industry 
that  uses  some  form  of  fabricated  steel  in  its  business.  The  strike  that 
was  then  organized  failed  through  the  active  and  intelligent  opposition 
of  the  very  men  who  are  today  refusing  to  give  organized  labor  a  chance 
to  engineer  another  strike  for   power. 

The  vital  principle  that  the  Bethlehem  Steel  Company  rs  fighting  for 
must  be  carried  on  exactly  as  it  is  being  done  today.  The  time  for 
temporizing   has    long  passed. 

But  such  unreserved  applause  is  conspicuous  by  its  rarity. 
Some  editors  are  careful  not  to  commit  themselves  too  deeply. 
The  New  York  Tribune,  for  instance,  calls  the  situation  "A 
Mutual  Lockout": 

The  unions  will  not  sell  their  labor  to  concerns  employing  non-union 
labor.  _  The  company  will  not  sell  its  steel  to  concerns  which  deny  to 
non-unionists  a  chance  to  get  jobs.  Boycott  is  thus  met  with  boycott. 
It  is  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  condemn  the  one  side  without  con- 
demning   the    other. 

The  Bethlehem  policy,  similarly  observes  the  New  York 
Commercial,  means  that  "what  is  sauce  for  the  goose  is  sauce 
for  the  gander."  "There  may  be  the  claim  of  right  behind 
Bethlehem  Steel's  attitude  in  refusing  to  provide  materials"  for 
closed-shop  contractors,  but,  adds  The  Commercial  carefully, 
"that  it  is  a  moral  right  will  not  be  universally  conceded." 

But  a  large  number  of  dailies,  many  of  them  conservative, 
and  in  general  friendly  to  the  open-shop  principle,  are  con- 
vinced that  Mr.  Grace  is  going  altogether  too  far.  Mr.  Grace 
is  "overvaluing  a  principle,"  is  the  way  the  Buffalo  Express 
puts  it ;  he  is  "fighting  minority  tyranny  with  despotism,"  accord- 
ing to  the  Brooklyn  Eagle,  which  finds  "despotism  by  organized 
capital  as  reprehensible  as  minority  tyranny  by  organized  labor." 
The  Rochester  Democrat  and  Chronicle  contends  that  there 
is  no  more  justice  in  trying  to  force  the  open-shop  policy  "on 
concerns  that  prefer  to  employ  only  union  labor  than  there 
would  be  in  union-labor  leaders  trying  to  force  the  closed-shop 


THE   CLOSED   SHOP  41 

principle  on  the  Bethlehem  Steel  plants."  Similar  observations 
come  from  the  Boston  Transcript,  the  Syracuse  Post-Standard, 
the  Newark  News,  and  the  Louisville  Courier-Journal.  The 
New  York  Journal  of  Commerce,  an  organ  of  business  and 
finance,  admits  that — 

Any  attempt  for  any  reason  on  the  part  of  steel  manufacturers  to 
interfere  with  the  right  of  contractors  to  determine  their  own  labor  policies 
is  too  closely  similar  to  an  effort  on  the  part  of  labor  in  the  building 
or  other  trades  to  dictate  the  labor  policy  of  the  steel  industry  to  appeal 
to  the  impartial  observer.  The  contractor  is  said  to  nd  it  to  the  in- 
erest  of  efficient  production  in  his  business  to  employ  union  labor  even 
if  in  so  doing  it  is  necessary  to  acquiesce  in  the  closed-shop  principle. 
If  this  is  the  case  it  is  desirable  both  from  the  standpoint  of  abstract 
right    and    of   public    interest    that   he    be    free    to    do    so. 

It  seems  to  the  New  York  Globe  that  while  New-Yorkers 
may  be  properly  concerned  over  the  possibility  that  the  Beth- 
lehem policy  has  in  some  cases  "increased  the  cost  of  building 
here  by  from  5  to  10  per  cent.,"  there  is  a  much  more  significant 
angle  to  the  situation.  In  general,  says  The  Globe,  the  union  has 
given  labor  a  weapon  without  disarming  capital  and  has  thus 
created  a  balance  of  power,  and  it  adds : 

The  open  shop  as  the  steelmakers  propose  to  create  it  apparently  means 
the  destruction  of  this  balance.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  the  action 
of  the  steel  manufacturers  takes  on  a  more  sinister  aspect  than  even 
the    most  determined   and   widespread   labor   movement. 

Likewise,  the  New  York  World  sees  the  "Brindells  of  Big 
Business"  taking  their  place  "alongside  the  Brindells  of  Organ- 
ized Labor."  "The  main  moral  and  economic  distinction  between 
the  coarse  Brindell  methods  and  the  refined  Grace  methods  was 
that  the  labor  autocrats  collected  their  pay  in  cash  and  the  steel 
autocrats  collected  their  pay  in  the  form  of  dividends  out  of 
sweated  immigrant  employees."  In  the  World's  opinion,  "the 
Brindellism  of  big  business  is  even  more  of  a  public  menace 
than  the  Brindellism  of  organized  labor,"  and  it  proceeds  to 
develop   this   thought   in    another    editorial: 

When  manufacturers  undertake  to  dictate  the  particular  kind  of 
labor  that  purchasers  of  their  products  shall  employ  they  have  but  one 
step  to  take  before  limiting  builders  and  owners  as  to  the  use  and  the 
occupancy  of  their  properties.  Aside  from  the  intolerable  tyranny  of  this 
situation  as  respects  capital,  labor,  and  housing  in  New  York,  the  atti- 
tude of  the  steelmakers  confirms  everything  charged  against  them  last 
year  at  the  time  of  the  strike  and  since  substantiated  by  the  report  of 
the    Interchurch    Committee. 

Thus  the  existence  of  an  industrial  autocracy  which  defies  Congresses 
and  snubs  Presidents  easily  becomes  a  menace  to  great  populations  far 
removed  from  its  thundering  mills  and  squalid  camps  of  imported  labor. 
At  trreat  cost  it  supprest  the  effort  of  its  employees  to  better  working 
conditions. 


42  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

Naturally,  to  a  socialist  paper  like  the  New  York  Call,  the 
newly  revealed  attitude  of  Bethlehem  Steel  and  other  steel  con- 
cerns gives  it  a  ready  answer  to  conservative  editors  who  have 
been  denouncing  the  "one  big  union"  and  "direct  action."  Here 
is  a  "One  Big  Union"  which  "believes  in  solidarity  of  all 
unions  of  capital,  stands  for  the  sympathetic  strike  of  capital, 
and  observes  the  policy  of  penalizing  any  other  capital  unions 
that  scab  upon  the  one  big  union.  It  believes  also  in  direct 
action  for  the  control  of  government  for  its  own  purposes." 


AFFIRMATIVE  DISCUSSION 

THE  CLOSED  SHOP ' 

Back  of  the  demand  for  the  closed  shop  there  are  thirty  or 
forty  years  of  history.  The  workingman  knows  what  his  con- 
dition was  prior  to  the  closed  shop.  He  knows  that  he  could 
not  possibly  have  attained  his  present  standing  without  the 
closed  shop. 

Thirty-five  years  ago  I  worked  as  a  typesetter  on  a  daily 
newspaper.  We  went  to  work  at  one  o'clock  in  the  afternoon 
and  worked  until  about  five  o'clock;  then  we  went  to  work 
again  in  the  evening  at  about  seven  o'clock  and  worked  until 
half-past  three  or  four  o'clock  in  the  morning — about  eleven 
or  twelve  hours  a  day,  generally  seven  days  a  week.  In  the 
course  of  that  week  I  was  able  to  earn  as  high  as  twenty-one 
dollars.  There  were  a  few  shifts  who  could  earn  more  than 
twenty-one  dollars. 

Twelve  hours  a  day  for  fifteen  to  twenty  dollars  a  week— 
this  was  the  prevailing  wage  for  printers  thirty-five  to  forty 
years  ago.  About  twenty-five  years  ago  there  came  a  great 
improvement  in  typesetting — the  invention  of  the  linotype. 
There  was  a  great  disturbance  in  the  printing  craft — it  was 
thought  that  possibly  women  would  come  in  to  take  the  places 
of  the  men.  But  it  was  arranged  between  the  union  and  the 
publishers'  association  that  the  old  printers  who  had  been  set- 
ting type  by  hand  should  have  the  first  opportunity  to  learn  the 
linotype;  that  there  should  be  set  up  a  certain  standard  of  effi- 
ciency; that  they  should  have  a  certain  number  of  months  dur- 
ing which  they  might  attain  that  standard  of  efficiency;  and, 
most  important  of  all,  the  hours  of  labor  were  reduced  from 
eleven  and  twelve  to  seven  and  eight.  Afternoon  work  was 
cut  out  and  there  was  only  night  work,  and  gradually  the 
wages  rose  much  higher  than  they  had  been  before  for  the 
twelve-hour   day.     The   efficiency  of  the   linotype   was   so   great 

*  From  the  speech  of  John  R.  Commons,  before  the  convention  of  the 
Industrial  Relations  Association  of  America  at  Chicago  on  May  21,  1920. 
Survey.   44:532-3-    July    17,    1920. 


44  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

that  ont  man  could  turn  out  five  times  as  much  work  as  he 
could  formerly  by  hand.  The  introduction  of  the  eight-hour 
day  instead  of  the  twelve-hour  day,  the  increase  of  wages,  the 
prevention  of  substitution  of  woman  and  child  labor  for  skilled 
mechanics;  this  is  what  the  closed  shop  hsts  done  for  the  print- 
ing trade. 

Now  compare  with  this  the  experience  in  another  great  in- 
dustry that  has  been  revolutionized  by  machinery,  in  order  to 
see  still  more  clearly  how  the  working  man  feels  about  the 
closed  shop. 

Down  to  1892  the  iron  and  steel  industry  was  practically 
a  closed  shop  industry.  In  1892  came  the  great  Homestead 
strike.  The  iron  and  steel  workers'  union  was  defeated.  The 
steel  companies  then  adopted  the  non-union  policy  and  with 
that  policy  they  adopted  the  twelve-hour  day  and  the  seven- 
day  week. 

Furthermore,  they  succeeded  in  introducing  the  greatest 
labor-saving  device  that  has  ever  been  introduced  in  the  steel 
industry — the  continuous  process  by  which  the  metal  is  not 
cooled  off  from  the  time  it  leaves  the  blast  furnace  until  it 
ends  in  structural  shapes  and  iron  rails.  The  efficiency  of 
labor  was  enormously  increased  but  the  workingman  was  re- 
duced in  his  condition  to  a  twelve-hour  day  and  a  seven-day 
week,  on  which  he  is  kept,  to  a  large  extent,  to  the  present 
time.  That  is  what  the  open  shop  has  done  for  the  work- 
ingman in  the  steel  industry. 

The  closed  shop  is  an  evil,  but  we  have  not  a  choice  between 
an  evil  and  a  perfect  remedy.  What  is  the  alternative  before 
us?  If  we  start  in  with  an  open  shop  or  a  non-union  shop — I 
consider  the  two  identical— and  thus  are  enabled  to  destroy 
the  union  movem'ent,  we  may  listen  to  the  promises  of  em- 
ployers who  say  that  they  will  pay  their  workmen  more  wages 
and  that  their  condition  will  be  better,  but  experience  teaches 
us  that  this  has  not  happened  under  the  open  shop  in  the  past. 
We  have  before  us  the  great  contrast  which  I  have  just  pre- 
sented. Surely,  we  are  safer  when  we  base  our  program  on 
experience  than  when  we  base  it  on  promises.  The  working- 
man  has  been  through  this  experience;  he  has  seen  the  results 
and  he  has  resorted  to  the  only  remedy  that  was  effective. 

The  closed  shop  policy  has  not  restricted  the  general  prog- 
ress of  the  nation.     We   must   remember  that  the  industry  of 


THE  CLOSED   SHOP  45 

the  United  States  is  increasing  its  productiveness  every  year. 
Today  we  produce  four  times  as  much  per  capita  as  we  did 
one  hundred  years  ago.  There  is  four  times  as  much  to  divide. 
The  closed  shop  has  enabled  organized  labor  and  unorgan- 
ized laborers  to  share  the  progress  of  machinery  and  the  devel- 
opment of  our  civilization. 


THE  CLOSED  SHOP ' 

"The  philosophy  of  the  closed  shop  is  based  upon  the  belief 
that  the  welfare  of  the  laboring  classes  is  bound  up  with  the 
device  of  collective  bargaining,  that  the  success  of  the  ex- 
pedient depends  upon  its  universal  application,  and  that  no 
individual  workman  can  be  conceded  rights  that  are  inconsis- 
tent with  the  welfare  of  his  class." 

Advantages  of  Trade-Unionism. — Without  attempting  a  thor- 
ough discussion  of  this  subject,  we  present  the  following  sum- 
mary of  the  advantages  of  the  trade-unions  as  cited  in  recent 
discussions  of  the  closed  shop. 

The  labor  movement  implies  an  orderly  effort,  not  only 
to  wrest  concessions  from  the  employer,  but  also  to  secure 
recognition  from  society.  It  is  a  movement  which  seeks  to 
change  the  present  standards  by  which  the  laborer's  share  in 
production  is  decided,  and  disputes  the  right  of  the  employer 
alone  to  determine  what  fair  treatment  should  be.  It  aims  at 
industrial  democracy  and  is  in  harmony  with  the  world-wide 
tendency  of  the  times. 

The  great  consideration  is  to  permit  workmen  to  have  a 
voice  in  the  shop — to  have  control  over  the  conditions  of  em- 
ployment. 

The  trade-unions  have  achieved  the  gradual  and  steady  in- 
crease of  wages  and  the  shortening  of  the  working-day. 

Trade-unions  are  coming  to  be  recognized  by  employers  as 
a  permanent  part  of  the  industrial  offer.  In  many  trades  in 
Great  Britain  the  employers  prefer  to  make  terms  with  the 
trade-unions  which  shall  apply  to  non-union  workmen  as  well, 
rather  than  to  make  terms  with  each  class  separately.  It  is 
coming  to  be  recognized  as  good  policy  to  deal  with  the  same 
form  of  organization  and  more  and  more  to  make  that  organ- 

*  William  D.   P.   Bliss.    New  Encyclopedia  of  Social   Reform,    p.  851-3. 


46  SELECTEiD   ARtlCLfiS 

ization  responsible,  so  far  as  may  be,  for  meeting  the  obli- 
gations that  are  assumed  by  it  for  the  workers  in  the  trade  it 
represents. 

A  well-organized  union  enables  an  employer  easily  to  obtain 
efficient  workmen;  to  make  collective  contracts,  which  are 
more  satisfactory,  cover  a  longer  term,  and  more  readily  ful- 
filled than  individual  contracts ;  and  it  tends  toward  conser- 
vatism,  and  thus   lessens  the   liability  of   strikes. 

To  seek  to  destroy  unions  because  of  their  defects  would 
be  like  attempting  to  abolish  government  because  of  its  abuses. 
The  unions  with  all  their  faults  represent  a  forward  stride  of 
the  human  race.  They  cultivate  a  spirit  of  self-reliance  and 
mutual  assistance  which  ought  to  more  than  compensate  for 
their  faults. 

As  the  unions  become  stronger  and  gain  in  experience,  they 
tend  to  conservatism.  The  hard  and  stern  conditions  con- 
fronting them  can  be  relied  upon  to  keep  them  within  bounds. 

Union  and  Non-Union  Employees. — The  reasons  why  union 
men  refuse  to  work  in  the  same  shop  with  non-union  men, 
and  which  are  at  the  root  of  the  contention  for  the  closed 
shop,  may  be  summarized  as  follows : 

A  shop  with  union  and  non-union  men  is  like  a  house 
divided  against  itself.  There  is  a  constant  attempt  to  organize 
it  entirely;  an  incessant  struggle  to  disorganize  it  completely. 

While  accepting  the  union  scale  of  wages  when  work  is 
plentiful,  the  non-unionist  will  immediately  lower  wages  as 
soon  as  work  becomes  more  difficult  to  obtain. 

It  is  easy  ,to  speak  of  the  open  shop  in  which  the  employer 
does  not  care  whether  his  men  are  union  men  or  not.  But 
the  union  cannot  accomplish  its  most  important  object  unless 
the  employer  deals  with  it  as  a  union.  The  employer  cannot 
be  made  to  enter  into  a  collective  bargain — and  without  the 
collective  bargain  the  conditions  of  labor  are  hardly  fixed  by 
bargaining  at  all — unless  the  union  comprizes  practically  all 
the  men  he  wishes  to  employ. 

Non-Union  Workers. — Much  attention  is  given  in  the  argu- 
ments of  trade-unionists  to  the  character  of  the  men  who  do 
not  join  the  unions,  with  the  view  of  showing  that  much 
sympathy  is  misplaced  when  bestowed  upon  these  workers,  who 
as  alleged,  are  deprived  of  their  liberty  to  contract  for  em- 
ployment. 


THE  CLOSED  SHOP  47 

Some  refuse  to  join  because  of  intolerable  conditions  ex- 
isting in  a  union.  It  is  maintained,  however,  that  when  such 
conditions  exist,  the  abuses  should  be  prevented  by  action  within 
rather  than  without  or  against  the  organization. 

Another  reason  given  for  not  joining  unions  is  because  of 
strong  but  mistaken  ideals  of  persons  who  believe  in  individual 
action,  in  the  right  of  every  man  to  do  as  he  will,  no  matter 
how  it  may  affect  his  neighbor.  This  policy,  it  is  maintained, 
is  not  practicable  in  a  civilized  community. 

Another  class  of  non-union  workers,  it  is  maintained,  con- 
sists of  persons  who,  purely  through  selfish  motives,  seek  to 
share  all  the  advantages  secured  by  the  sacrifices  of  the  trade- 
unionists  without  bearing  any  of  the  burdens  of  incurring  any 
of  the  risks. 

Lastly,  there  is  said  to  be  a  class  of  professional  strike- 
breakers. These,  it  is  claimed,  are  either  dishonorably  dis- 
charged unionists  or  they  belong  to  the  class  of  the  criminals, 
idlers,  and  incompetents  who  are  only  willing  to  work  or  to 
make  a  pretense  of  working  in  order  to  defeat  the  ends  of 
honest  working  men. 

The  Legal  Right, — It  is  contended  by  trade-unionists  that 
in  their  action  for  securing  the  closed  shop  they  are  doing 
nothing  but  what  is  lawful. 

As  free  citizens  the  wage-earners  have  the  right  to  work 
or  to  refuse  to  work,  to  make  certain  demands  for  their  wel- 
fare, and  to  strike  if  the  demands  are  not  granted.  An  em- 
ployee has  the  right  to  say  that  he  will  sell  his  labor  on  con- 
dition that  he  is  not  to  work  with  obnoxious  persons.  In  like 
manner,  laborers  can  combine  to  sell  their  labor  collectively 
and  on  the  same  terms.  They  dp  not  deny  the  right  of  employ- 
ment to  non-unionists,  but  simply  refuse  to  work  with  them. 

The  union  workmen  who  refuse  to  work  with  non-unionists 
do  not  say  in  so  many  words  that  the  employer  shall  not  en- 
gage non-union  workers.  The  dictum  of  the  trade-union  is 
not  equivalent  to  an  act  of  Congress  or  of  a  state  legislature 
prohibiting  employers  from  engaging  non-union  men.  What 
the  unionists  in  such  cases  do  is  merely  to  stipulate  as  a  con- 
dition that  they  shall  not  be  obliged  to  work  with  men  who, 
as  non-unionists,  are  obnoxious,  just  as  they  shall  not  be  obliged 
to  work  in  a  dangerous  or  unsanitary  factory,  for  unduly  long 
hours,  or  at  insufficient  wages. 


48  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

The  Moral  Right. — The  trade-unionists  claim  that  they  are 
not  only  legally  but  also  morally  justified  in  refusing  to  work 
with  non-union  men. 

Society  makes  right  that  which  will  accomplish  the  most 
good  for  its  members  as  a  body. 

If  it  is  wrong  to  ostracize  or  to  refuse  to  associate  with 
craftsmen  who  are  indifferent  to  their  common  welfare,  then 
it  is  equally  wrong  for  professional  men  to  shun  others  of 
their  calling  accused  of  unprofessional  conduct,  and  it  is  wrong 
for  merchants  to  taboo  other  tradesmen  who  disregard  the 
ethics  of  their  business. 

In  modern  industry  working  men  do  not  act  as  individuals 
contracting  with  employers.  The  workingman  of  to-day  belongs 
to  a  group,  and  whether  he  will  or  not,  acts  with  his  group 
and  is  treated  like  others  of  his  group.  He  works  the  time 
worked  by  the  others,  receives  the  wages  paid  the  others  of 
his  class,  and  obeys  the  regulations  made  for  his  group.  His 
employer  does  not  know  that  he  exists,  but  sim.ply  knows  that 
so  many  hundreds  or  so  many  thousands  of  men  of  his  type 
are  employed  at  a  given  wage,  for  a  given  number  of  hours, 
and  under  certain  given  conditions.  What  affects  one  of  his 
class  affects  all. 

Just  as  the  individual  owes  a  duty  to  society,  so  also,  tho 
in  a  less  degree,  he  owes  a  duty  to  his  class.  The  non-unionist 
has  no  moral  right  to  seek  his  own  temporary  advantage  at 
the  expense  of  the  permanent  interests  of  all  working  men. 

If  the  union  has  a  right  to  exist,  which  is  no  longer  denied, 
it  has  a  right  to  insist  on  those  conditions  which  are  necessary 
to  its  existence;  and  it  cannot  exist  if  non-union  men  are  per- 
mitted to  take  the  jobs  of  union  men. 


THE  UNION  SHOP  AND  ITS  ANTITHESIS ' 

The  synonyms  for  "union"  shop  and  "non-union"  shop 
respectively  are  "democracy"  and  "autocracy."  In  the  union 
shop  the  workers  are. free  men.  They  have  the  right  of  organ- 
izing in  trade  unions  and  to  bargain  collectively  with  their  em- 
ployers through  representatives  of  their  own  choosing.  Employees 
in  the  non-union  shop  are  like  cogs  in  a  machine.     They  have 

^  Pamphlet   by    Samuel    Gompers.     July,    1920. 


THE  CLOSED  SHOP  49 

nothing  to  say  as  to  the  conditions  under  which  they  will  work, 
but  must  accept  any  wages,  hours  and  working  conditions  that 
may  be  fixed  arbitrarily  by  the  employer. 

A  non-union  man  who  accepts  employment  in  a  union  shop 
has  the  privilege  of  joining  the  union  which  has  a  voice  in  deter- 
mining with  employers  the  wages,  hours  and  conditions  of  work. 
He  is  given  time  in  which  to  make  application,  if  he  so  desires. 

No  union  man,  if  known,  is  permitted  by  the  employers  to 
work  in   a  non-union   shop. 

Men  who  believe  that  the  Chinese  Exclusion  law  should  be 
repealed,  who  believe  that  Literacy  Test  should  be  repealed,  who 
believe  that  hordes  of  illiterate  immigrants  from  southeastern 
Europe  should  be  permitted  to  enter  the  United  States  as  freely 
as  citizens  of  this  country  pass  from  state  to  state,  are  the  men 
who  object  to  the  union  shop.  They  believe  in  autocracy  in 
industry.  They  hope  to  use  these  hordes  to  lower  the  standard 
of  living  of  the  workers  of  the  United  States.  Furthermore, 
they  will  fight  to  the  last  ditch  to  prevent  the  taking  away  from 
them  of  the  arbitrary  power  of  dictating  wages,  hours  and  con- 
ditions of  employment  to  the  workers  in  their  employ. 

Most  relentless  propaganda  has  been  used  to  discredit  the 
union  shop  and  to  hold  up  to  the  public  the  great  benefits  of  the 
non-union  shop.  No  more  malicious  misrepresentation  of  a 
desirable  condition  in  industry  ever  was  launched.  It  began  in 
the  early  1900's  when  a  number  of  associations  were  formed  to 
destroy  the  trade  union  movement.  Lawyers  were  employed  to 
travel  about  the  country  delivering  addresses,  all  of  which  were 
confined  to  denunciation  of  labor  organizations.  The  most 
venomous  charges  were  made  against  them. 

Judges  were  influenced  by  this  propaganda  to  decide  that 
the  union  shop  was  illegal.  The  opinions  of  these  judges  con- 
tained most  bitter  statements  against  the  workers  who  had  had 
the  temerity  to  organize.  They  were  charged  with  being  non- 
progressive obstacles  to  the  welfare  of  the  country,  and  un- 
American.  These  opinions  were  heralded  through  the  news- 
papers as  the  turning  point  from  which  the  trade  unions  would 
gradually  disintegregate.  Employers'  associations,  citizens'  alli- 
ances and  organizations  of  many  other  names  composed  of  em- 
ployers or  their  agents  kept  up  a  perpetual  criticism  of  Labor. 

The  reason  was  purely  selfish.  The  antagonists  of  Labor 
believed  that  if  they  could  destroy  the  trade  union  movement, 
wages  could  be  reduced  to  a  low  standard;  that  it  would  not  be 


50  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

necessary  for  them  to  safeguard  the  heahh  of  their  employees  or 
build  plants  in  which  the  machinery  was  so  protected  that  it  was 
of  less  danger  of  injury  to  the  workers. 

When  Labor  sought  the  enactment  of  laws  providing  for 
compulsory  education  it  was  such  men  who  fought  them  most 
viciously.  The  latter  believed  if  the  children  of  the  workers  were 
permitted  to  go  to  school  that  when  they  grew  older  they  would 
demand  better  conditions  of  employment  than  their  fathers. 
It  was  for  the  same  reason  they  have  been  and  are  now  demand- 
ing the  non-union  shop. 

It  is  the  principal  method  used  to  repress  the  workers,  to 
browbeat  them  and  keep  them  in  perpetual  fear.  To  make 
Americans  is  none  of  their  concern.  They  do  not  care  whether 
their  employees  are  loyal  citizens  or  not  as  long  as  they  can  have 
their  goods  manufactured  at  less  cost  than  a  fair-minded  em- 
ployer of  Labor. 

But  this  propaganda  that  stirred  the  country  in  the  early 
1900's  reacted.  The  people  learned  that  the  men  who  were  em- 
ployed in  union  shops  were  possessed  of  better  characters  and 
higher  principles  that  made  them  more  intelligent,  proficient, 
and  productive  workers  than  those  employed  in  the  non-union 
shops.     Besides  it  made  them  better  citizens. 

Furthermore,  investigations  made  by  many  employers  taught 
them  that  collective  bargaining  with  organized  workmen  brought 
greater  results  than  the  arbitrary  fixing  of  conditions  for  the 
non-union  workers.  Gradually  the  benefits  of  the  union  shop 
became  better  known.  Employer  after  employer  changed  his 
attitude  and  voluntarily  agreed  to  the  union  shop.  There  are 
many  thousands  of  employers  in  the  United  States  who  are 
conducting  the  union  shop  and  would  not  change  under  any 
circumstances. 

But  after  the  armistice  was  signed  the  profiteers  in  order 
to  hide  their  nefarious  practices  launched  a  bitter  crusade 
against  the  union  shop.  It  has  reached  high  tide  and  will 
soon  recede,  as  the  public,  and  especially  the  non-union  work- 
ers, are  beginning  to  realize  that  the  only  hope  for  relief  is 
in  organization.  This  has  been  exemplified  in  the  past  year 
by  more  than  a  million  men  joining  the  organized  labor  move- 
ment, until  now,  July,  1920,  there  are  5,500,000  organized  work- 
ers in  America. 

The  repeated  crusades  against  the    union    shop    have    been 


THE  CLOSED   SHOP  51 

boomerangs.     They  have  called  the  attention  of  the  non-union 
workers  to  their   economic  plight. 

When  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  was  organized 
the  big  cities  of  the  country  were  filled  with  sweat-shops.  The 
tenement  house  system  in  New  York  was  so  abominable  that 
the  legislature,  through  the  insistence  of  the  American  Feder- 
ation of  Labor  enacted  a  law  for  its  abolition.  It  was  most 
highly  injurious  to  the  health  of  the  workers  on  sanitary,  eco- 
nomic, moral  and  social  grounds.  Whole  families  lived  in  one 
room  where  cigars  and  clothing  were  made  by  women  and 
children. 

It  was  the  trade  union  movement  that  gradually  drove  the 
sweat-shops  from  the  tenement  houses  and  compelled  the  es- 
tablishment of  factories  in  well-ventilated  buildings.  The 
sweat-shop  was  the  non-union  shop. 

The  sweat-shops  were  not  abolished,  however,  until  the 
workers  were  organized  and  demanded  sanitary  working  condi- 
tions. This  required  the  establishment  of  factories.  The  fac- 
tories were  union  shops.  While  the  bread-winners  of  families 
who  lived  in  the  tenement  houses  were  at  work  in  the  fac- 
tories, their  dependents  gained  health  in  the  improved  living 
surroundings  because  of  the  law  forbidding  home  work. 

Those  now  living  who  in  the  early  eighties  were  employed 
in  the  large  plants  of  the  country  realize  the  great  improve- 
ments made  in  the  conditions  of  employment.  It  was  not  un- 
til the  union  shop  was  demanded  and  largely  secured  that 
these   economic  benefits  were   gained. 

It  is  because  Labor  is  continually  seeking  improvements  in 
working  conditions  and  the  standard  of  living  that  the  objec- 
tions are  aroused  of  those  who  desire  to  keep  the  workers  ser- 
vile. Upon  what  other  grounds  would  employers  oppose  the 
organization  of  the  workers?  What  other  reason  could  be 
given?  They  are  the  men  who  clothe  themselves  in  the  cloak 
of  piety  and  raise  their  eyes  upward  in  horror  when  they  hear 
anyone  speak  of  the  union  shop.  They  stand  in  the  way  of 
progress  as  others  have  done  since  the  beginning  of  time. 
They  are  the  reactionaries  who  believe  in  involuntary  servi- 
tude. They  are  the  men  who  seek  legislation  to  tie  men  to 
their  jobs.  The  union  shop  is  an  obstacle  to  their  dreams  of 
autocracy  in  industry.  Therefore  they  seek  to  make  the  un- 
ion  shop  detestable  In   the  eyes  of  the  people  while  the  non- 


52  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

union  shop  is  lauded  as  the  greatest  harbor  for  "free"  men 
that  could  possibly  be  conceived. 

But  employees  in  a  non-union  shop  soon  find  out  that  they 
are  not  free  men.  When  they  enter  such  a  plant  they  leave 
all  hope  of   economic  improvement  behind. 

What  is  a  union  shop? 

A  union  shop  is  a  shop  where  the  employees  are  members 
of  trade  unions  or  are  willing  to  join.  The  workers  through 
representatives  selected  by  themselves  meet  the  employers  in 
the  industry  on  a  common  ground.  They  hold  meetings  in 
their  unions  in  which  all  grievances  they  may  have  are  thor- 
oughly discussed.  These  include  wages,  hours  of  employment 
and   rules  covering  their  health,   safety  and  comfort. 

The  union  shop  represents  true  democracy  in  industry. 
There  are  no  class  distinctions  or  autocratic  rulings  to  disturb 
the  best  relations  between  the  workers  and  their  employers. 
The  right  of  organizing  into  trade  unions  is  conceded.  Em- 
ployers and  employees  meet  as  man  to  man.  Each  respects  the 
other.  The  employee  is  a  willing  worker  and  the  employer 
keeps  the  part  of  the  bargain  he  has  made  with  the  workers 
through  their  chosen  representatives. 

What   is  a   non-union   shop? 

A  non-union  shop  is  where  the  workers  who  are  unorgan- 
ized are  employed  as  individuals.  Their  wages  and  hours  of 
work  are  determined  without  consultation  with  them  and  with- 
out their  consent.  If  the  worker  has  grievances  he  is  unable 
to  present  them.  Fear  of  retaHation  by  the  employer  or  his 
representative  in  this  plant  keeps  the  worker  from  making 
complaints.  If  he  does  complain  he  obtains  no  redress.  Con- 
sequently, the  workers  work  day  in  and  day  out,  week  in  and 
week  out,  in  fear  of  discharge.  This  artificial  atmosphere  is 
created  for  the  purpose  of  forcing  the  employees  to  greater  ex- 
ertion. Pacemakers  are  scattered  throughout  the  plant  for  the 
purpose  of  keeping  this  perpetual  fear  of  losing  their  jobs  be- 
fore the  non-union  worker.  But  this  fails.  The  unorganized 
workers  become  morose,  sullen  and  rebellious.  There  is  no 
comradeship  among  such  employees.  Consequently  the  work 
under  duress  and  without  enthusiasm   for  their  employment. 

An  autocratic  power  may  dictate  any  rule  that  may  be  con- 
ceived. No  protest  can  be  made  by  the  non-union  workers, 
as  they  have  only  fear  for   each  other,  the   fear  that  if  they 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  53 

voice  their  disapproval  of  the  conditions  under  which  they 
work  some  fellow  worker  would  report  it  to  a  "straw  boss." 
That  would  mean  separation   from  their  jobs. 

Why  is  the  union   shop  preferable? 

Countries  grow  great  as  their  people  increase  in  confidence 
and  loyalty.  Men  who  are  congenially  employed  who  can  hold 
up  their  heads  and  say  what  they  think  without  fear  of  the 
headsman's  axe  separating  them  from  their  employment  make 
real  Americans.  Only  in  union  shops  can  men  be  found  who 
are  striving  for  better  conditions  of  employment  in  order  that 
they  and  their  dependents  can  enjoy  life  and  happiness.  They 
do  not  enter  the  plants  in  the  morning  in  fear  and  trembling 
that  some  supernumerary  will  meet  them  with  stinging,  unjust 
criticism. 

It  is  always  noticeable  that  "straw  bosses"  in  non-union 
shops  are  burly  men  whose  very  looks  inspire  fear.  There  is 
no  intimidation  in  the  union  shop.  Everything  is  open  and 
above  board.  In  the  union  shop  if  a  foreman  or  superintend- 
ent wishes  something  to  be  done  by  the  men  they  inform  the 
latter  in  the  language  that  any  fair  man  would  use  to  another. 
There  is  no  brutality  in  their  talk.  Because  of  this  fact  the 
employees  go  about  their  task  in  a  whole-hearted,  loyal  manner. 

What  is  the  "open  shop"? 

An  "open-shop"  is  a  non-union  shop  where  the  fiction  is 
kept  alive  that  union  men  may  work  but  are  not  permitted  to 
do  so. 

An  employer  who  refuses  to  employ  a  union  man  will  say: 
"I  do  not  discriminate  against  union  and  non-union  men.  I 
conduct  an  'open  shop,'  that  is,  those  who  apply  for  work  will 
be  given  employment  when  they  are  needed.  This  is  a  shop 
where  men  are  'free.'  " 

But  when  a  workman  applies  for  employment  he  is  asked  a 
number  of  questions.  In  many  cases  he  has  to  fill  out  a  ques- 
tionnaire giving  his  entire  history  from  the  cradle  to  the  pres- 
ent time,  and  one  of  the  most  important  queries  is,  "Are  you 
a  member  of  any  union?"  If  the  man  answers  this  question 
in  the  affirmative  he  is  not  employed.  He  is  told  that  his 
name  will  be  placed  on  file  and  that  he  will  be  notified  when 
there  is  work  for  him. 

But  he  never  is  notified.  Instead  his  name  is  sent  to  other 
manufacturers  to  prevent  the  possibility     of     his     being     em- 


54  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

ployed  elsewhere.  This  is  a  method  used  by  the  non-union 
shop  employers  to  place  on  the  black  list  all  members  of 
unions. 

The  so-called  open  shop  influences  wages  and  the  standard 
of  living  downward,  and  it  is  based  upon  the  sycophancy  of  the 
most  docile  and  servile  and  the  most  immediate  needs  of  those 
in  distress   of   the  poorest  situated   among  the  workmen. 

This  so-called  "open  shop"  is  the  disintegrating  factor  that 
leads  to  the  non-union  shop;  in  other  words,  the  shop  which  is 
closed  to  the  union  man,  no  matter  from  whence  he  hails  or  what 
his  skill  and  competency. 

What  is  the  "closed  shop"? 

The  term  "closed  shop"  was  originated  about  1903.  It  was 
coined  by  the  enemies  of  trade  unions  for  a  purpose.  That 
purpose  was  and  continues  to  be  to  divert  attention  from  the 
defensive  action  of  union  men. 

The  union  creates  certain  desirable  conditions.  The  non- 
unionist  tries  to  destroy  them.  By  not  competing  with  one 
another  for  the  employment,  the  unionists  make  their  advantage. 
By  competing,  the  non-unionists  would  leave  the  dictation  of 
terms  wholly  to  employers.  And  then  the  employers,  when  the 
union  has  gained  something  through  its  advantage,  come  forward 
with  a  demand  for  the  "open  shop"  and  make  an  appeal  to  the 
public  in  the  name  of  liberty. 

The  term  "closed  shop"  is  a  false  designation  of  the  union 
shop.  Those  who  are  hostile  to  labor  cunningly  employ  the  term 
"closed  shop"  for  a  union  shop  because  of  the  general  antipathy 
which  is  ordinarily  felt  toward  anything  being  closed,  and  with 
the  specious  plea  that  the  so-called  "open  shop"  must  necessarily 
afford  the  opportunity  for  freedom.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the 
union  shop  is  open  to  all  workmen  who  perform  their  duty,  and 
they  participate  in  the  benefits  and  advantages  of  the  improved 
conditions  which  a  union  shop  affords.  The  union  shop  also 
implies  duties  and  responsibilities.  This  is  incident  to  and  the 
corollary  of  all  human  institutions. 

The  dishonest  idea  given  in  the  term  "closed  shop"  is  that 
no  one  can  secure  employment  there  except  members  of  trade 
unions. 

When  the  unions  make  an  agreement  with  the  employers  as 
to  wages,  hours  and  working  conditions,  it  is  natural  to  believe 
that  the  contract  is  between  members  of  unions  only  and  the 
employers.    But  men  can  be  employed  who  are  not  members  of  a 


THE   CLOSED   SHOP  55 

union.  A  certain  period  is  given  them  to  prove  their  competency 
and  then  if  the  result  is  favorable  their  applications  as  members 
the  unions  are  accepted.  Any  wage  worker  can  join  a  trade 
union.  All  are  open,  wide  open  to  all  wage-workers,  qualified 
at  the  occupation  organized.  They  pay  an  entrance  fee  barely 
sufficient  to  equalize  the  payments  of  unions,  benevolent  benefits 
and  current  cost  of  administration.  No  union  ever  asks  a  non- 
unionist  to  pay  for  the  slightest  percentage  of  the  damage  he  has 
done  as  a  disruptionist.  It  is  literally  and  positively  true,  without 
evasion  or  equivocation,  that  trade  unions,  and  consequently 
union  shops,  are  open  for  all  wage-workers  whom  any  employer 
would  possibly  contemplate  as  employes  who  would  be  kept 
regularly  and  permanently  in  his  employ. 

What  the  trade  unionists  call  for  is  the  union  shop.  Those 
who  speak  of  it  as  a  "closed  shop"  are  enemies  of  labor  who 
by  distorting  the  facts  seek  to  discredit  the  trade  union  move- 
ment. 

The  question  is  often  asked,  "why  should  a  non-union  man 
who  secured  employment  in  a  union  plant  agree  to  join  the 
union  after  he  has  proved  his  competency.  Why  should  he  not 
be  at  liberty  to  work  as  a  non-union  man?" 

Wages  in  union  shops  are  higher  than  in  non-union  shops. 
The  hours  of  work  are  less  and  the  working  conditions  are 
more  desirable.  These  are  gained  through  the  workers  dealing 
with  the  employer  collectively.  Each  member  contributes  a 
small  sum  to  carry  on  the  work  of  the  union.  Why  should  a 
non-unionist  be  permitted  to  enjoy  the  benefits  gained  without 
paying  his  share  of  the  cost  of  securing  them?  It  is  a  funda- 
mental principle  that  those  who  are  the  beneficiaries  of  organi- 
zation should  share  in  the  responsibilities  and  obligations 
involved   in   the   achievements. 


THE  OPEN  SHOP  MEANS  THE  DESTRUCTION 
OF  THE  UNIONS  ^ 

The  whole  employing  class  of  the  United  States  is  lining  up 
for  a  new  campaign  against  the  unions.  In  this  fight  it  is 
backed  by  the  press,  the  middle  classes,  public  opinion  generally 
and  the  highest  labor  arbitration  tribunal  in  the  country.     The 

*  William   English   Walling.     Independent.     56:1069-72.     May    12,    1904. 


56  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

struggle  is  momentous.  It  Vv^ill  decide  not  only  the  industrial 
but  the  social  and  political  future  of  the  United  States.  If 
the  employers'  campaign  is  successful,  it  means  the  elimination 
of  the  trade  unions  as  a  factor  m  American  industry.  If  it 
fails,  nothing  short  of  direct  Government  control  can  prevent 
the  unions'  steady  progress  toward  industrial  domination. 

Employers  are  almost  completely  organized  for  the  fight. 
The  public  has  not  realized  how  much  has  been  accomplished 
since  the  coal  strike  (1902).  The  organized  manufacturer  and 
contractors  are  no  longer  alone.  They  are  supported  by  com- 
mercial interests,  railroads  and  banks.  Evidence  of  their  co-op- 
eration can  be  seen  on  every  side.  In  Chicago  and  St.  Louis 
emergency  funds  of  $1,000,000  are  ready  for  immediate  use.  The 
banks,  I  was  told  by  an  officer  of  the  St.  Louis  Association,  are 
at  the  bottom  of  that  organization.  In  Chicago  the  railroads 
played  a  similar  part.  The  Chicago  Employers'  Association 
grew  up  out  of  the  freight  handlers'  strike.  The  Chicago, 
Burlington  &  Quincy  Railroad  furnished  one  of  its  first  organ- 
izers and  the  great  commercial  interests  the  other  three.  Recently 
a  transcontinental  railroad  conveyed  strike  breakers  from  New 
York  to  San  Francisco  at  an  $11  rate  at  the  request  of  a  pow- 
erful employers'  association.  The  movement  is  spreading  from 
city  to  city.  Since  Philadelphia  and  New  York  joined  the 
fold  a  few  weeks  ago  every  important  city  has  its  powerful 
federation  of  employers'  associations.  Some  time  ago  associa- 
tions were  formed  in  most  of  the  important  national  indus^ 
tries,  and  now  every  trade  which  has  not  already  been  formed 
into  a  trust,  is  organized  to  deal  with  labor.  All  of  these  as- 
sociations, local  or  national,  industrial  or  federated,  with  one 
or  two  exceptions,  are  moving  openly  or  secretly  to  force  the 
unions  to  the  open  shop.  But  the  open  shop,  say  the  unions, 
means  an  open  warfare  against  organized  labor. 

Until  this  new  issue  arose  public  opinion,  outside  of  the 
eastern  money  centers,  was  largely  on  the  union  side.  During 
the  anthracite  strike  the  great  majority  of  newspapers  leaned 
to  the  miners.  They  favored  the  "recognition  of  the  union" 
and  the  trade  agreement.  Under  the  mistaken  assumption  that 
the  open  shop  means  nothing  more  than  equal  treatment  for 
union  and  non-union  men,  public  opinion  has  veered  around 
and  now  stands  almost  solidly  opposed  to  the  organization  of 
labor.  Nearly  every  one  of  the  great  city  newspapers  has  be- 
come a  partisan  of  the  open  shop.     Under  their  leadership  the 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  57 

business,  professional  and  salaried  classes  and  the  whole  farm- 
ing community  have  been  lined  up  in  favor  of  a  proposition 
which,  whatever  may  be  said  of  its  advocates,  puts  the  very 
existence  of  the  unions  in  the  employers'  hands. 

Employers  say  the  open  shop  means  simply  even-handed 
treatment  for  union  and  non-union  men.  Unions  say  the  open 
shop  spells  their  destruction.     Why?     What  is  the  open  shop? 

Fortunately  an  official  interpretation  of  the  open  shop  has 
been  given  to  us  by  the  highest  labor  arbitration  court  which 
we  have  ever  had — a  court  appointed  by  the  President  of  the 
United  States  and  accepted  by  the  nation.  The  Anthracite 
Coal  Strike  Commission  was  not  only  our  most  important  la- 
bor arbitration  board,  but  it  has  left  behind  it  the  most  im- 
portant "trade  agreement"  in  industry.  The  Commission's 
award  was,  of  course,  in  general  terms,  and  first  of  all  pro- 
vided for  an  umpire  to  decide  disputes  arising  under  it.  Col. 
Carroll  D.  Wright,  head  of  the  Bureau  of  Labor,  has  been  ap- 
pointed  umpire. 

The  Anthracite  Commission  decided  for  an  open  shop.  In 
a  recent  decision  that  has  alarmed  and  antagonized  the  whole 
labor  movement  Colonel  Wright  defines  the  open  shop  as 
follows : 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  employer  has  a  perfect  right  to  em- 
ploy and  discharge  men  in  accordance  with  the  conditions  of  his  industry; 
that  he  is  not  obliged  to  give  any  cause  for  discharge.  .  .  .  This  right 
to  discharge  must  be  maintained.  Any  other  view  of  the  case  .  .  . 
would  compel  employers  to  employ  men  whether  they  had  work  for  them 
or  not,  and  whether  the  men  were  competent  or  not,  and  would  thus 
stagnate  business  and  work  to   the   injury  of  all  other   employers. 

President  Roosevelt  in  his  letter  of  July  14th  last  written 
during  the  Miller  controversy,  says  "I  heartily  approve  of  the 
award  and  judgment  by  the  Commision  appointed  by  me." 

President  Roosevelt  approves  of  the  award  of  the  An- 
thracite Commission.  His  appointee.  Commissioner  Wright, 
shows  that  this  award  has  as  its  very  basis  the  right  to  dis- 
charge without  cause.  The  right  to  discharge  without  cause 
is  the  feature  of  the  open  shop  against  which  the  unions  will 
fight  to  the  last  ditch.  The  local  union  of  the  Mine  Workers 
where  Mr.  Wright's  decision  was  given  was  disintegrated 
through  the  employers'  insidious  attacks  until  finally  the  Na- 
tional Executive  Board,  of  which  Mr.  Mitchell  is  the  head, 
withdrew  its  charter  in  disgust. 

To  admit  the  right  to  discharge  without  cause  is,  the  un- 
ions believe,  to  sign    their    own    death    warrant.     If    the    em- 


58  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

ployer  can  discharge  a  man  "who  does  not  suit  him,"  to  quote 
Colonel  Wright  again,  he  can  discharge  a  union  man  for  the 
simple  reason  that  he  is  a  union  man.  Nor  is  the  employer's 
promise  not  to  discriminate  sufficient.  To  fall  back  on  the 
promise  of  the  employer  is  to  bring  the  workman  back  to  the 
same  conditions  of  servile  dependence  he  occupied  when  he 
had  to  ask  for  better  wages  as  an  individual  favor,  instead  of 
demanding  them  through  his  union  as  a  right. 

The  employer  who  can  "discharge  without  cause"  can  de- 
prive the  workman  of  his  means  of  subsistence  and  the  union 
of  its  members.  No  organization  can  continue  to  exist  longer 
than  it  is  able  to  protect  its  individual  members  from  outside 
attack.  For  a  "labor"  organization  to  protect  its  members  it 
must  first  of  all  keep  them  i:^;  work.  To  a  union  man  perma- 
nently out  of  a  job  a  union  card  is  a  bit  of  pasteboard  and  a 
union  agreement  for  better  wages  is  not  worth  the  paper  on 
which  it  is   written. 

The  employer  who  can  "discharge  without  cause"  has  the 
power  to  use  war  measures  in  times  of  peace.  By  locking  out 
union  men  one  at  a  time  he  can  wage  a  quiet  war  of  exterm- 
ination as  effective  as  and  much  less  expensive  than  a  general 
lock-out.  Under  arbitration  and  the  trade  agreement  he  can 
do  exactly  what  he  does  in  an  open  fight — ^he  can  wield  against 
the  unions  the  whole  reserve  army  of  labor,  the  great  body  of 
the  unorganized  and  the  unemployed. 

That  is  why  the  unions  say  the  open  shop  is  an  open  fight 
against  labor,  and  why  men  like  Organizer  Fitzpatrick,  of  Chi- 
cago, who  put  75,000  members  into  the  unions  there  in  a  single 
3^ear,  believe  that  fire  must  be  fought  with  fire. 

"We  favor,"  he  tells  me,  "the  abolition  of  all  agreements 
and  arbitration  wherever  we  have  been  forced  to  accept  the 
open  shop.  The  employers  promised  not  to  discriminate.  But 
they  had  no  sooner  begun  to  adopt  the  open  shop  than  we  saw 
the  wholesale  discharge  of  union  men.  .  .  .  What  is  the  use 
of  having  agreements  with  men  who  are  stabbing  you  in  the 
back?"  The  open  shop  agreement  gives  one  of  the  contracting 
parties,  the  employer,  power  to  annihiliate  the  other  contracting 
party. 

W^ith  the  open  shop  discrimination  against  union  men  is  gen- 
eral, the  often  indirect.  One  of  the  most  eminent  and  con- 
servative employers  in  the  country  told  me  that  he  never  dis- 
charged an-  agitator  who  was  a  good  workman  at  the  time  of  the 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  59 

foreman's  complaint.  "I  always  wait,"  he  said,  "until  the  fellow 
gives  me  some  other  excuse."  Other  discrimination  is  less 
veiled.  In  the  Bulletins  of  the  Metal  Trades  Association  are 
accounts  of  many  employers'  movements.  Where  the  open  shop 
obtains,  the  secretaries  almost  invariably  boast  of  the  decreasing 
membership  of  the  unions.  The  same  men  who  are  openly 
making  every  effort  to  disrupt  are  the  most  ardent  advocates 
of  the  open  shop. 

That  discrimination  is  general  is  shown  by  the  means  employ- 
ers have  adopted  to  reap  the  fruits  of  the  open  shop.  Employers' 
associations  are  everywhere  installing  the  Employment  Bureau. 
By  this  means  the  employees  of  all  the  members  of  an  asso- 
ciation are  registered  and  their  records,  including  always  their 
records  as  unionists,  are  kept.  In  each  shop  the  employer 
naturally  gives  every  preference  to  local  and  obedient  non-union 
men.  By  means  of  the  Employment  Bureau  these  same  loyal 
individuals  may  be  preferred  by  the  associated  employers  in  the 
distribution  of  jobs  in  the  season  when  work  is  scarce.  The 
union  workmen  may  find  themselves  not  only  discriminated 
against  while  employed,  but  given  employment  in  inverse  ratio 
to  their  loyalty  to  their  union.  The  Employment  Bureau  gives 
a  whole  industry  the  information,  the  means  and  the  opportunity 
for  discrimination  against  union  men. 

Lincoln  said  "this  country  cannot  remain  half  slave  and  half 
free."  The  unions  have  found  that  an  industry  cannot  remain 
half  non-union  and  half  union.  If  the  industry  is  already 
unionized,  if  all  or  nearly  all  the  men  in  it  are  members  of  the 
union,  there  is  no  objection  to  the  open  shop.  The  unions  cannot 
be  broken  when  there  are  no  non-union  men.  They  cannot 
be  broken  if  employers  agree  not  to  replace  union  by  non-union 
men  and  then  live  up  to  this  agreement.  Under  such  conditions 
also  the  unions  have  no  objections  to  the  open  shop.  The 
making  of  new  converts  to  the  union  will  soon  unionize  the 
trade.  The  molders  employed  by  the  Stove  Defense  Association 
have  with  the  full  consent  of  the  emplo3^ers  organized  all  but 
two  of  the  sixty-four  shops.  This  may  not  be  the  union  shop, 
but  it  is  the  very  thing  to  which  employers  object.  It  is  the 
unionization  of  industry.  Employers  are  taking  a  final  stand 
against  the  unionization  of  industry  by  fighting  the  battle  of  the 
non-union  men. 

"When  the  unions  ha\e  6,000,000  members,"  says  John 
Mitchell,  "instead  of  3,000,000  they  will  be  not  twice  but  four 


6o  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

times  as  strong  as  they  are  at  the  present  time."  Industry 
unionized,  employers  felt,  would  mean  industry  in  the  hands  of 
the  unions.  The  employer  would  find  his  occupation  gone.  An 
appeal  to  the  Government  is  an  appeal  to  the  farmers  and  the 
middle  class. 

Even  this  might  not  serve.  Doubtless  the  farming  and  middle 
classes  would  take  measures  to  protect  themselves  as  consumers. 
But  is  there  reason  to  suppose  that  they  would  be  inclined  to 
confer  benefits  on  a  class  which  had  lost  its  economic  power? 

What  is  to  be  the  result?  One  thing  is  clear.  In  dealing 
with  labor  employers  will  act  as  a  unit.  They  have  already 
united  on  the  open  shop.  The  open  shop  leads  to  the  Employ- 
ment Bureau,  the  Employment  Bureau  to  the  National  Labor 
Bureau.  The  blacklist  will  be  practiced  on  a  national  scale. 
The  unions  also  will  act  not  locally  and  by  separate  trades,  but 
nationally  and  in  concert.  The  sympathetic  lockout  they  will 
fight  with  the  sympathetic  strike.  To  the  national  blacklist  they 
will  reply  with  the  national  strike.  Labor  conflicts  are  to  become 
a  community  affair.  The  most  vital  concern  of  the  nation  is  to 
be  the  labor  question. 


AN  EXPOSITION  OF  THE  OPEN  SHOP ' 

The  campaign  of  misrepresentation  and  intimidation  of  the 
avowed  enemies  of  trade  unionism  in  the  name  of  the  American 
Plan  and  the  "Open  Shop"  system,  while  clothed  in  new 
raiment,  is  not  by  any  means  new  to  the  workers  of  this  city, 
and  those  who  can  remember  the  hysterical  efforts  of  our 
enemies  will  recollect  that  about  15  years  ago  we  were  con- 
fronted with  the  same  opposition,  although  at  that  time  the 
organized  force  of  opposition  to  trade  unionism  was  not  as  wide- 
spread as  at  the  present  time.  This  may  be  attributed  to  the 
fact  that  Cleveland  then  did  not  have  the  population  it  now  has 
and  that  the  organized  workers  were  not  as  large  numerically. 

The  fact  that  the  advocates  of  the  "open  shop"  are  now 
endeavoring  to  place  their  system  in  a  new  light,  and  many 
enemies  of  labor  are  paying  speakers  to  propagate  the  idea  that 
this  "Open  Shop"  is  a  new  idea  of  the  employer  and  a  panacea 

^  Pamphlet  by  John  G,  Owens,  Secretary  Cleveland  Fcdeirg^tipft  of 
Labor, 


THE  CLOSED   SHOP  6i 

for  labor  troubles,  let  us  quote  here  what  Max  Hayes  had  to 
say  about  the  "Open  Shop"  15  years  ago: 

Stripped  of  all  Pharisaical  cant  and  meaningless  phrases,  the  triumph 
of  the  "open  shop"  means  a  closed  shop  to  members  of  organized  labor; 
it  means  discrimination  in  favor  of  such  workers  who  lack  the  moral 
stamina  to  resist  oppression;  it  means  the  dragging  of  more  children  into 
the  shops  and  factories  to  take  the  place  of  fathers  and  brothers  at  lower 
wages  and  longer  hours;  it  means  an  increase  of  crime,  poverty,  drunk- 
enness and  insanity:  it  means  degeneration,  chaos  and  the  ultimate  de- 
struction of  our  civilization. 

That  the  movement  of  15  years  ago  did  not  "succeed  in  its 
effort  to  wipe  out  organization  among  the  workers  is  evidenced 
by  the  numerical  strength  of  the  workers  in  Cleveland  today, 
and  the  very  fact  that  by  strengthening  its  forces  since  that 
time  it  has  succeeded  in  bringing  about  more  moral  conditions 
in  our  society  and  the  passage  of  laws  beneficial  not  only  to 
the  organized  workers,  but  the  unorganized  and  the  employing 
class  as  well,  has  compelled  the  members  of  the  Manufacturers' 
Association,  and  the  large  institutions  who  are  not  satisfied 
with  a  fair  deal  for  the  producer  to  use  new  methods  in  advocat- 
ing their  un-American  plan  of  the  "open  shop"  at  this  time, 
but  no  matter  how  they  describe  it,  and  no  matter  how  they 
clothe  it  in  non-union  garments,  it  is  the  same  today  as  it  ever 
was,  and  no  worker  who  has  partaken  of  the  benefits  of  col- 
lective effort  on  the  part  of  the  workers  can  be  misled  by  the 
flowery  diction  of  the  paid  hirelings  of  the  "open  shop" 
advocates. 

In  spite  of  all  this  antagonism  that  has  been  manifested  by 
the  opponents  of  organized  labor,  and  their  apparent  insincerity 
in  advocating  the  practical  elimination  of  trade  unions,  claiming 
that  they  perform  certain  undesired  functions  that  retard  busi- 
ness, they  admit,  all  of  them,  that  the  organized  workers  have 
been  responsible  for  many  reforms  that  today  are  beneficial 
to  the  worker  and  economical  to  the  employer.  In  all  matters 
pertaining  to  safety,  sanitation  and  environment,  so  loudly  lauded 
by  the  welfare  associations  and  the  employer,  the  organized 
yvorker  took  the  initiative,  and  in  practically  all  cases  he  was 
confronted  by  the  violent  opposition  of  these  same  employers. 
In  all  matters  aiming  at  the  elimination  of  the  sweat-shop,  and 
the  lengthening  of  the  Hves  of  the  toilers,  the  organized  move- 
ment of  workers  deserves  the  credit,  and  in  no  instance  was  it 
supported  by  the  employer,  and  strange  to  say  these  same  em- 
ployers are  now  endeavoring  to  inform  those  outside  the  trade 


62  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

union  movement  that  they  were  responsible  for  the  reforms  and 
that  their  ideals  will  continue  them. 

The  absurdity  of  this  can  be  best  demonstrated  by  an  analy- 
sis of  the  actual  working  of  their  methods  of  dealing  with  the 
toilers,  and  we  will  now  take  up  the  various  phases  of  their 
system  and  logically  demonstrate  what  would  be  the  actual  con- 
ditions under  their  "open  shop"  method  and  graphically  and 
truthfully   reason   out   the  position   of  organized   labor. 

"Open  Shop"  a  Misnomer 

The  statement  so  often  heard  from  the  lips  of  the  unfriendly 
employer  and  the  men  who  are  paid  large  salaries  to  propagate 
their  vicious  and  dishonest  system  is  that  the  "open  shop"  they 
desire  is  one  that  is  open  to  union  and  non-union  men  alike. 
Let  us  take  as  an  illustration  any  establishment  operated  under 
the  so-called  "open  shop"  plan.  The  employer  insists  that  every 
worker  shall  be  employed  under  an  individual  contract.  The 
employer  will  admit  that  this  is  so.  Then,  if  two  or  three 
union  men  accidentally  secure  employment  there,  and  meet  with 
the  others  they  cannot  but  menace  the  individualistic  system. 
In  fact  the  employer  is  well  aware  of  the  fact  that  even  one 
union  man  can  menace  his  system,  and  to  protect  himself  he 
must  always  be  on  the  alert  to  see  that  a  union  man  or  a 
number  of  union  men  are  not  employed.  Any  "open  shop" 
advocate  will  admit  this  under  pressure  and  the  result  is  that 
their  ideal  shop  is  far  removed  from  an  open  shop,  and  is  in 
reality  a  closed  shop,  closed  at  all  times  to  union  men. 

Along  the  same  line  of  reasoning  their  statement  that  the 
individual  contract  of  the  workers  spells  independence  and 
liberty,  is  also  worthy  of  a  little  illumination.  Why  does  the 
employer  insist  on  the  individual  contract?  Is  it  not  to  weaken 
the  toiler  as  a  worker  and  place  him  in  a  position  where  his 
mind  becomes  subservient  to  the  will  of  the  man  who  is  placed 
over  him?  Not  only  is  the  non-union  worker  supposed  to  sub- 
serve his  mentality  to  the  will  of  the  boss,  but  he  is  not  permitted 
to  use  his  initiative  in  advancing  the  cause  of  production,  because 
of  his  fear  of  the  other  workers,  and  his  desire  to  do  only 
what  little  work  he  is  compelled  to  do.  There  can  be  no  intel- 
lectual advancement  on  the  part  of  the  worker  and  there  can  be 
no  independence  or  liberty  where  the  subserviency  of  the  em- 
ployee is  the  rule,  and  we  have  always  been  taugh  that  mental 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  63 

subserviency  and  mental  perversion  is  the  worst  form  of  slavery, 
and  the  control  of  the  mentality  of  the  workers  leads  to  violence, 
chaos  and  immoral  and  degrading  conditions  and  can  be  sum- 
moned up  as  the  most  autocratic  despotism  known  to  modern 
civilization. 

Freedom  and  independence  come  from  interdependence,  and 
interdependence  in  an  industry  operated  on  an  non-union  basis 
is  utterly  impossible,  and  any  fair-minded  employer  will  admit  it. 

Not  only  is  the  open  shop  closed  to  union  labor,  and  not 
only  does  it  destroy  in  the  worker  every  vestige  of  independ- 
ence and  liberty,  not  only  of  action,  but  of  thought;  it  also 
has  many  other  evils  to  answer  for.  We  have  been  reading 
with  much  interest  the  actions  of  the  Caliph  of  Bagdad,  and 
the  wish  of  the  moneyed  men  in  their  desire  to  have  all  em- 
ployed. Let  us  analyze  the  question  of  unemployment  in  this 
so-called  "open  shop".  The  employer  depends  entirely  upon 
his  superintendents  and  foremen  to  carry  out  his  will.  When 
it  becomes  necessary  to  reduce  the  force  the  employer  notifies 
those  who  are  holding  sinecure  positions,  and  they  in  turn  lay 
off  the  men,  and  naturally,  too,  they  lay  off  those  men  who 
are  not  friendly  to  them,  or  who  have,  by  a  spark  of  manli- 
ness, refused  to  subserve  themselves  entirely  to  their  will. 
The  question  of  efficiency  never  enters  in  because  where  there 
is  lack  of  harmony  and  a  continued  fear  of  every  other  work- 
er, there  can  -be  little  efficiency.  A  number  of  the  employes 
are  thrown  out  of  work,  and  these  men,  who  have  been  living 
from  day  to  day  on  their  earnings,  go  to  make  up  the  increas- 
ing number  of  our  people  who  must  needs  look  for  charity, 
and  these  moneyed  men,  who  seem  so  anxious  to  assist  the 
unemployed  are  in  the  main  responsible  for  the  unemployment. 

Not  content  with  creating  numerous  foremen  and  sub-fore- 
men, superintendents  and  sub-superintendents,  these  "open 
shop"  •  adherents  have  instituted,  no  doubt  unconsciously,  a 
system  of  lying  that  is  unprecedented,  for  the  men  in  charge, 
and  the  straw  bosses  who  are  employed  to  continually  watch 
for  a  sign  of  independence  on  the  part  of  the  men,  are  the 
only  ones  who  ever  really  meet  and  confer  with  the  proprie- 
tor or  General  Manager,  and  it  is  to  their  benefit  and  to  per- 
petuate their  positions  that  they  must  misrepresent  conditions 
and  see  to  it  that  the  menace  of  organization  is  a  danger  to 
the  employer,  when  in  reality  it  is  the  salvation  of  both  the 
employer  and  the  employee. 


64  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

Not  content  with  the  gang  bosses  and  higher  bosses  usual- 
ly found  in  the  so-called  "open  shop",  and  which  we  have 
proven  is  an  out  and  out  non-union  shop,  it  is  argued  by  the 
sub-bosses  that  detectives  and  spies  must  be  employed  to  re- 
port and  immediately  stamp  out  any  move  on  the  part  of  an 
employee  to  confer  with  another,  and  indeed  this  espionage  is 
as  rigid  as  in  the  penitentiary.  Another  innovation  of  the 
"open  shop"  is  the  desire  on  the  part  of  the  employer  and  his 
lieutenants  to  so  far  as  possible  prevent  the  employees  from 
coming  in  contact  with  outsiders,  to  the  end  that  innumerable 
uniformed  police  are  employed  to  guard  the  exits  and  en- 
trances, and  to  patrol  the  plant,  and  this  guard  is  made  so  ef- 
fective that  the  workers  are  of  the  belief  that  the  spy  system 
is  as  well  informed  of  their  actions  outside  the  plant  as  in- 
side, and  many  of  the  men  actually  fear  to  speak  of  their 
work  in  their  homes,  feeling  sure  that  it  will  go  back  to  the 
boss.  "Open  Shop" !  if  the  average  non-union  open-shop  in 
this  or  any  other  city  is  more  open  than  a  penal  institution, 
then  we  would  like  to  see  it. 

Many  of  those  who  have  given  little  thought  to  this  im- 
portant question  of  the  relation  of  the  worker  to  the  employ- 
er have  wondered  why  it  was  that  the  union  employer  could 
give  conditions  of  hours,  and  better  pay  to  his  employees  and 
still  compete  with  the  non-union  employer.  The  reason  is  ap- 
parent, for  the  overhead  in  the  payment  of  bosses  and  spies  is 
no  little  item  to  the  non-union  employer,  and  yet  he  insists 
that  the  non-union  policy  is  a  business  proposition. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  accept  the  word  of  the  union  man 
as  to  the  lack  of  efficiency  brought  about  by  distrust  and  in- 
harmonious conditions  such  as  exist  in  the  non-union  shop, 
even  though  logic  would  demand  an  admission.  All  we  have 
to  do  is  to  cite  the  case  of  the  Bethlehem  Steel  Company  in 
demanding  that  their  fabricated  steel  be  sold  only  to  those 
concerns  employing  non-union  erectors.  The  concerns  using 
their  steel  admitted  before  an  investigating  committee  of  the 
New  York  Legislature  that  the  employing  of  members  of  the 
Erectors'  league,  made  up  of  non-union  iron  workers,  added 
20  per  cent  to  the  cost  of  erection,  over  the  same  job  erected 
by  union  iron  workers. 

Even  in  the  stoppage  of  work  by  the  toilers,  the  employer 
is  ever  ready  to  cite  the  strike,  but  little  is  said  concerning  the 
strike  of  non-imion  men.     Of  course,  it  must  be  admitted  that 


THE  CLOSED  SHOP  65 

with  the  number  of  poHce  and  detectives  employed  to  prevent 
such  an  occurrence,  strikes  among  these  exploited  workers 
sometimes  occur,  and  in  such  cases  there  is  no  limit  to  the 
brutalities  of  those  involved,  and  the  heighth  of  their  sabotage 
methods.  We  have  had  several  experiences  of  this  character 
and  it  would  be  but  a  waste  of  time  to  enumerate  them.  How- 
ever, it  is  reasonable  to  presume  that  the  lowest  type  of  op- 
position must  be  resorted  to  by  men  who  have  been  subserved 
and  browbeaten  as  individuals  in  their  capacity  as  workers. 

Another  evil  of  the  "open  shop",  and  one  that  should  have 
the  consideration  of  all  who  believe  in  a  moral  city,  is  the 
evil  effect  of  the  guard  and  spy  system  on  society.  These 
guards  in  non-union  shops  are  recruited  from  young  men  who 
have  no  trade  and  who  lack  the  energy  to  do  arduous  work 
of  any  kind,  and  in  many  cases  they  are  secured  from  private 
detective  agencies,  and  when  they  go  to  work  they  are  armed 
with  death-dealing  weapons.  Every  fair-minded  man  or  wo- 
man will  admit  that  this  right  to  carry  weapons  has  a  psycho- 
logical effect  on  the  young  man,  and  when  they  are  discharged 
or  laid  off  because  of  a  slackness  of  work,  they  still  insist  on 
the  use  of  these  weapons,  and  with  no  trade  and  no  desire  to 
work,  what  is  the  most  natural  thing  for  them  to  do?  A  visit 
to  the  police  court  and  presence  at  the  hearing  of  some  of 
the  gun-men  who  are  terrorizing  our  people  will  prove  that 
this  vicious  practice  of  the  non-union  employer  in  arming  spies 
and  guards,  (as  in  the  case  of  the  employer  who  secures  the 
services  of  thugs  and  criminals  to  incite  and  intimidate  strik- 
ers,) is  the  apprentice  shop  for  professional  hold-up  men  and 
criminals  of  all  kinds,  and  it  would  be  well  for  the  reform 
organizations  to  study  this  phase  of  the  workers  if  they  desire 
to  end  the  reign  of  terror  now  prevalent  in  Cleveland. 

These  are  but  a  few  of  the  evils  of  the  non-union  shop, 
and  any  others  can  be  logically  dealt  with  in  a  like  manner, 
and  we  merely  describe  them  to  show  that  the  position  of  the 
"open-shopper"  is  insincere  and  dishonest  and  that  the  only 
reason  the  employer  can  give  for  such  an  unmoral*  condition 
of  the  worker  is  his  desire  to  pose  in  our  community  as  the 
autocrat  of  those  he  employs.  Yet,  under  the  present  system 
of  large  industrial  institutions,  there  is  no  reality  to  his  auto- 
cracy, for  he  is  not  virtually  in  charge  of  those  he  employs, 
and  the  menace  to  society  that  has  its  birth  in  this  desire  is 
of  such  a  nature  that  it  behooves  the  employer  to  hesitate  and 


66  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

to  willingly  sacrifice  this  position,  and  do  something  that  will 
assist  in  bringing  about  a  better  civilization  and  a  more  har- 
monious condition  among  all  the  people,  for  while  in  the  old 
days  when  the  employer  was  an  autocrat  who  employed  two  or 
three  workers,  and  could  ignore  interdependence,  that  day  has 
also  passed,  and  the  only  true  citizen  is  he  that  i^  willing  to 
subserve  self  to  the  selfishness  of  the  whole. 

Now  that  we  have  described  the  co-called  "open  shop"  and 
demonstrated  the  fallacy  of  the  exponents  that  their  kind  of 
an  "open  shop"  is  one  in  which  non-union  and  union  workers 
are  employed,  it  would  be  well  to  illustrate  just  what  is  hap- 
pening and  what  is  the  aim  of  those  employers  in  this  city 
who  have  locked-out  their  men  because  they  would  not  accede 
to  their  desire  for  the  "open  shop"  which  would  mean  giving 
up  their  union,  and  we  might  say  right  here  that  even  the 
employer  is  recognizing  that  there  is  some  good  in  trade  un- 
ionism, if  he  is  willing  to  compromise  by  employing  union 
men  if  they  will  sign  a  contract  that  they  will  no  longer  be- 
long to  a  union.  If  the  non-union  men  were  the  most  effi- 
cient he  would  not  have  the  union  men  under  any  circum- 
stances, but  the  truth  of  the  matter  is  that  the  unions  have 
demonstrated  their  worth,  even  in  creating  efficiency  among 
their  members,  and  the  employers  want  this  efficiency  and  no 
doubt  a  better  right  of  exploitation  of  the  individual  worker, 
which  is  dishonest  to  say  the  least,  when  we  recognize  the 
other  good  things  that  have  been  brought  about  through  trade 
unionism. 

As  an  illustration,  we  shall  first  take  up  the  present  lock- 
out of  the  Metal  Polishers,  for  it  can  hardly  be  called  a 
strike.  The  men  demand  first,  the  right  of  organization,  and 
second,  a  consistent  wage,  based  on  the  wages  paid  other 
skilled  workers.  If  the  question  were  one  of  wages  alone,  the 
present  position  of  the  employer  would  be  deplorable,  for  one 
of  the  proprietors  who  is  now  employing  non-union  men, 
stated : 

I  have  13  men  working  for  me  at  this  time,  and  I  am  paying  them 
the  wages  demanded  by  the  union  men,  but  I  am  sure  that  I  could  get 
as   much   work  from   three   of  my  old  men    as   I   get  from   the   thirteen. 

This  is  evidence  that  it  is  not  a  matter  of  cheap  employees 
giving  results,  and  it  is  in  line  with  what  was  said  by  Mr. 
Redfield  some  years  ago,  that  he  could  manufacture  engines 
under  union   wages   and   union   conditions  in   New  York,   send 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  67 

them  to  China,  and  sell  them  there  at  a  more  reasonable  profit 
than  those  made  in  China  by  cheap  Chinese  labor  and  the  long 
hours  of  work  prevalent  in  the  Orient. 

The  Pattern  Makers  have  been  out  of  work  for  many 
months  here,  and  the  employers,  like  those  in  the  metal  trades, 
want  the  non-union  shop.  The  union  men  have  refused  to 
give  up  their  union,  and  the  shops  have  been  trying  to  lead  the 
public  to  believe  that  they  are  operating  as  usual.  And  yet 
these  employers  are  busy  trying  to  get  injunctions  against  the 
union  men,  prohibiting  them  from  picketing  the  plants  and  in- 
timidating the  men  employed.  This  would  be  rediculous  if  it 
were  not  tragic,  for  every  man  with  a  grain  of  sense  knows 
that  no  employer  cares  how  many  men  are  in  the  neighbor- 
hood of  his  plant,  when  his  force  is  full  and  all  are  competent 
men.  The  reason  for  the  action  of  the  employers  in  this  case 
should  be  apparent  to  all.  They  have  been  losing  money  and 
expected  long  before  this  that  the  strikers  would  be  discour- 
aged through  lack  of  work.  But  the  union  men,  in  their  work 
of  picketing  the  shops,  also  know  what  is  going  on,  and  this 
knowledge  th^t  the  employer  is  losing  money  gives  them  con- 
tinued courage.  Ergo,  the  employer  wants  an  injunction  to 
limit  the  pickets  to  one,  believing  that  when  the  union  men  are 
at  home  and  have  no  first-hand  knowledge  of  the  real  condi- 
tions in  the  plant,  he  will  become  discouraged  and  return  to 
work.  Shrewd,  you  say,  but  we  in  the  labor  movement  have 
been  confronted  with  the  nefarious  machinations  of  the  em- 
ployer for  years,  and  yet  we  have  said  little  about  it,  for  we 
believe  the  time  will  come  when  the  honesty  of  the  worker 
will  shine  more  brightly  because  of  the  handicaps  he  must 
overcome  by  reason  of  the  dishonesty  of  the  employer.  The 
greatest  surprise  to  the  workers  is  the  fact  that  certain  judges 
will  issue  and  sustain  injunctions  because  of  the  plea  of  the 
corporations'  attorneys,  when  they  know  that  only  through  the 
hirelings  of  the  corporation  is  there  a  chance  of  danger  to 
property  or  the  lives  of  their  employees,  and  of  this  we  can 
iurnish  instances  where  their  paid  tools  have  deliberately  and 
maliciously  destroyed  property  and  endeavored  to  place  the 
blame  on  organized  labor. 

Next  we  have  the  lockout  of  the  Journeymen  Tailors,  and 
this  will  give  another  phase  of  the  unions'  stand.  That  these 
men  were  locked  out  cannot  be  denied,  because  they  asked 
only  a  continuation  of  the   conditons  that  prevailed,  the  year 


68  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

previous  to  the  termination  of  their  contract,  and  the  mer- 
chant tailors  insisted  that  they  go  back  to  a  piece-work  system 
and  naturally  give   up  the  union. 

The  conditions  under  the  piece-work  system  were  so  immoral 
and  degenerating  that  in  other  trades  where  work  was  taken 
into  the  homes,  the  law  stepped  in  and  demanded  it  cease.  Not 
so  with  the  tailors,  but  the  workers  themselves  decided  that 
they  would  do  their  work  in  regularly  established  shops,  and 
work  by  the  week.  This  system  was  established,  and  the  workers 
were  all  of  the  impression  that  everything  was  harmonious 
between  them  and  the  bosses,  and  lo !  and  behold  the  Chamber 
of  Commerce  came  out  for  the  "open  shop"  and  even  today 
it  is  said  that  these  moneyed  men  are  backing  the  merchant 
tailors,  and  this  in  the  face  of  the  fact  that  the  Consumers' 
League,  in  its  bulletin,  points  out  the  evils  of  the  home  work, 
where  children  with  sickness  play  on  the  goods  their  father  and 
mother  and  older  sisters  and  brothers  are  fashioning  into  suits 
for  the  men  who  are  always  first  in  the  effort  to  have  all  em- 
ployed and  to  raise  funds  to  take  care  of  those  who  are  not  able 
to  care  for  themselves. 

While  it  is  absolutely  true  that  these  non-union  tailors  are 
receiving  the  support  of  the  members  of  the  Chamber  of  Com- 
merce, let  us  get  a  little  light  on  this  lockout.  The  excuse  of  the 
merchant  tailor,  and  his  only  excuse,  is  that  the  workers  in  the 
shop  will  not  give  a  day's  work  and  that  therefore  the  consumer 
is  compelled  to  pay  so  much  for  a  suit.  This  excuse,  however, 
had  its  inception,  when  the  Chamber  of  Commerce  went  out 
for  the  "open  shop",  and  guaranteed  to  back  the  merchant  tailors. 
The  cost,  if  there  be  any,  is  one  that  the  consumer  should  be 
glad  to  pay,  when  he  recognizes  the  benefit  he  alone  receives 
by  a  guarantee  of  cleanliness  and  immunity  to  disease,  to  say 
nothing  of  the  moral  effect  on  the  community.  But  let  us  go  a 
little  further.  The  worker,  in  all  honesty,  believed  the  time 
had  arrived  when  he,  as  the  head  of  a  family,  could  earn  a  wage 
to  keep  his  wife  and  children,  and  the  employer,  who  had  been 
selling  his  clothes  and  getting  his  price,  now  insists  that  it  is 
not  a  question  of  payment  so  much  as  having  the  man  accom- 
plish as  much  in  a  day  in  the  shop  as  he  formerly  did  by  work- 
ing 14  and  18  hours  a  da)^  and  having  his  wife  and  children 
also  assist  in  the  work.  This  he  cannot  do,  but  he  is  willing 
to  give  an  efficient  eight  hours  to  the  employer  at  a  rate  about 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  69 

equal  with  what  he  received  for  one  person's  work  of  eight 
hours  under  the  piece-work  system.  The  employer  will  not 
accede  to  this,  but  insists  on  forcing  the  work  back  into  the 
home,  and  by  making  all  the  members  of  the  family  assist  in  the 
work,  early  and  late,  and  under  all  conditions,  force  many 
workers  in  this  craft  out  of  work.  The  union  men  and  women 
know  why  the  employers  who  urge  the  open  shop  want  to  force 
the  workers  back  to  the  piece  work  and  home  work  system, 
because  the  home  work  and  piece  work  eventually  creates  un- 
employment, thus  forcing  the  man  who  sells  his  labor  into  a 
condition  where  he  must  Lid  against  his  fellow  worker  for  a 
chance  to  earn  enough  to  live,  but  it  seems  a  pity  that  society 
will  permit  this  group  of  employers  to  re-establish  a  sweat-shop 
condition  here  in  Cleveland,  in  the  tailoring  industry,  a  breeding 
place  for  illiterates  and  criminals,  when  our  people  are  trying 
to  eliminate  these  breeding  spots  in  other  places.  This  is  one 
thing  that  society  at  large  should  correct  and  do  as  the  Con- 
sumers' League  does,  and  when  this  matter  has  been  corrected, 
let  the  merchant  tailor  make  his  fight  for  the  non-union  shop  on 
some  other  pretext. 

There  are  many  other  evils  in  the  so-called  "open  shop", 
and  the  employer  who  has  but  one  idea  with  reference  to  labor, 
and  refuses  to  recognize  the  human  equation  in  the  productive 
end  of  his  enterprise,  can  pay  huge  sums  to  certain  one-track 
minds  to  so  clothe  these  evils  that  to  one  not  actually  engaged 
at  manual  labor,  either  skilled  or  unskilled,  in  a  large  industry, 
they  will  almost  appear  as  virtues,  yet  when  dissected,  and  dis- 
robed, they  will  appear  as  evil  as  the  ones  logically  dealt 
with  here. 

The  employer  who  desires  to  destroy  all  the  rights  the 
workers  may  have  or  may  gain  in  the  future,  knows  that  any 
semblance  of  organization  among  the  workers  makes  for  the 
betterment  of  all,  and  to  effectually  exploit  the  worker  he  must 
successfully  eliminate  every  vestige  of  organization  among  the 
toilers.  We  feel  sure  that  the  good  that  has  resulted  from 
organization  will  prevent  this,  and  a  knowledge  of  the  aims  and 
objects  of  the  organized  workers  by  those  not  connected  there- 
with; will  make  friends  and  supporters  that  will  so  augment  the 
ranks  of  the  workers  that  in  the  near  future  they  will,  by  their 
united   effort,   bring   about   the   aims   they   desire. 

In  this  article  we  have  pointed  out  the  inconsistancy  of  the 


70  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

"open  shop"  advocates,  but  we  cannot  effectually  close  without 
the  following  from  an  address  delivered  in  this  city  by  John 
H.  Walker,  President  of  the  Illinois  State  Federation  of  Labor  : 

The  man  or  woman  who  wants  to  place  the  working  man  and  woman 
of  our  country  in  a  position  where  they  will  be  helpless  and  at  the 
mercy  of  the  employers,  compelled  to  submit  like  animals  to  their  dic- 
tation in  every  phase  of  their  lives,  is  not  only  not  just,  or  not  a  real 
American,  but  that  they  are  not  even  selfishly  intelligent  because  in  the 
light  of  the  past  history  of  our  country  and  our  people  all  open-minded, 
intelligent  observers  must  know  that  the  American  working  man  and 
woman  citizens  will  never  submit  to  any  impositions  that  puts  the  taint 
of  slavery  on  them  in  any  way,  and  as  long  as  there  is  effort  being  made 
to  establish  that  kind  of  an  imposition  on  them,  there  will  be  nothing 
but  strife  contipually,  and  the  stronger  the  effort,  the  more  wide-spread 
and  intense  will  be  the  strife,  (particularly  industrial  strife)  as  well  as 
suffering  and  misery  in  our  country,  until  it  is  ended, — and  it  is  not 
only  right  that  we  should  have  a  union  shop,  but  it  is  the  only  wa;y  in 
which  the  worker  can  get  any  real  consideration.  It  is  the  only  intelli- 
gent way  of  adjusting  relationships  between  the  worker  and  the  ern- 
ployer — the  only  American  way — the  only  civilized  way.  Besides,  it  is 
my  solemn  judgment  that   it  is  the   only  safe   way. 

By  that  process  we  will  not  only  adjust  all  the  problems  that  we  have 
now,  on  the  basis  of  the  nearest  thing  of  fairness  that  we  can  figure  out, 
but  it  means  that  every  problem  that  we  may  have  in  the  future  will 
be  adjusted  rationally,  intelligently,  on  the  basis  of  fairness  peaceably. 
It  means  the  rational  road  to  a  higher  civilization.  The  other  road  is 
the  way  back  to  the  feudal  ages,  to  the  caveman  era,  towards  savagry 
and    barbarism.      It   is   the    road   of   the   beast    amongst   men. 

So  much  for  the  "open  shop."  In  the  near  future  we  will 
take  up  its  opposite,  the  "union  shop",  and-  logically  and  truth- 
fully illustrate  what  its  aims  arc,  what  evils  it  corrects,  and  how 
and  what  it  would  mean  to  society  at  large  if  it  were  recognized 
by    all    employers. 


SUMMARIZED  CONCLUSIONS  ' 

Sufficient  data  were  analyzed  to  warrant  the  following  main 
conclusions  concisely  stated  here  and  discussed  at  length  in 
this  report  and  the  sub-reports. 

1.  The  conduct  of  the  iron  and  steel  industry  was  deter- 
mined by  the  conditions  of  labor  accepted  by  the  191,000 
employees  in  the  U.S.  Steel  Corporation's  manufacturing 
plants. 

2.  These  conditions  of  labor  were  fixed  by  the  Corporation, 
without  collective  bargaining  or  any  functioning  means 
of  conference ;  also  without  above-board  means  of  learn- 
ing how  the  decreed  conditions  affected  the  workers 

*  Report  on  the  Steel  Strike  of  19 19,  Commission  of  Inquiry  of  the 
Interchurch  World  Movement. 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  71 

Ultimate  control  of  the  plants  was  vested  in  a  small 
group  of  financiers  whose  relation  to  the  producing  force 
was  remote.  The  financial  group's  machinery  of  control 
gave  it  full  knowledge  of  output  and  dividends,  but 
negligible  information  of  working  and  living  conditions. 
The  jobs  in  the  five  chief  departments  of  the  plants  were 
organized  in  a  pyramid  divided  roughly  into  thirds ;  the 
top  third  of  skilled  men,  chiefly  Americans,  resting  .on  a 
larger  third  of  semi-skilled,  all  based  on  a  fluctuating 
mass  of  common  labor.  Promotion  was  at  pleasure  of 
company  representatives. 

Rates  of  pay  and  other  principal  conditions  were  based  on 
what  was  accepted  by  common  labor;  the  unskilled  and 
semi-unskilled  force  was  largely  immigrant  labor. 
The  causes  of  the  strike  lay  in  the  hours,  wages  and  con- 
trol of  jobs  and  in  the  manner  in  which  all  these  were 
fixed. 

Hours:  Approximately  one-half  the  employees  were  sub- 
jected to  the  twelve-hour  day.     Approximately  one-half 
of  these  in  turn  were  subjected  to  the  seven-day  week. 
Much  less  than  one-quarter  had  a  working  day  of  less 
than  ten  hours    (sixty-hour   week). 

The  average  week  for  all  employees  was  68.7  hours ;  these 
employees  generally  believed  that  a  week  of  over  sixty 
hours  ceased  to  be  a  standard  in  other  industries  fifteen 
to  twenty  years  ago. 

Schedules  of  hours  for  the  chief  classes  of  steel  workers 
were  from  twelve  to  forty  hours  longer  per  week  than  in 
other  basic  industries  near  steel  communities ;  the  Ameri- 
can steel  average  was  over  twenty  hours  longer  than  the 
British,  which  ran  between  forty-seven  to  forty-eight 
hours  in   1919. 

Steel  jobs  were  largely  classed  as  heavy  labor  and  hazard- 
ous. 

The  steel  companies  professed  to  have  restored  prac- 
tically pre-war  conditions ;  the  hours  nevertheless  were 
longer  than  in  1914  or  1910.  Since  1910  the  Steel  Corpor- 
ation has  increased  the  percentage  of  its  twelve-hour 
workers.  The  only  reasons  for  the  twelve-hour  day, 
furnished  by  the  companies,  were  found  to  be  without 
adequate  basis  in  fact.    The  increased  hours  were  found 


72  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

to  be  a  natural  development  of  a  large  scale  production, 
which  was  not  restricted  by  public  sentiment  or  by  organi- 
zation among  employees. 

The  twelve-hour  day  made  any  attempt  at  "Americani- 
zation" or  other  civic  or  individual  development  for  one- 
half  of  all  immigrant  steel  workers  arithmetically  im- 
possible. 
8.  Wages:  The  annual  earnings  of  over  one-third  of  all 
productive  iron  and  steel  workers  were,  and  had  been 
for  years,  below  the  level  set  by  government  experts  as 
the  Minimum  of  subsistence  standard  for  families  of  five. 
The  annual  earnings  of  72  per  cent,  of  all  workers  were, 
and  had  been  for  years,  below  the  level  set  by  govern- 
ment experts  as  the  minimum  of  comfort  level  for  fam- 
ilies of  five. 

This  second  standard  being  the  lowest  which  scientists 
are  willing  to  term  an  "American  standard  of  living," 
it  follows  that  nearly  three-quarters  of  the  steel  workers 
could  not  earn  enough  for  an  American  standard  of 
living. 

The  bulk  of  unskilled  steel  labor  earned  less  than  enough 
for  the  average  family's  minimum  subsistence;  the  bulk 
of  semi-skilled  labor  earned  less  than  enough  for  the 
average  family's  minimum   comfort. 

Skilled  steel  labor  was  paid  wages  disproportionate  to 
the  earnings  of  the  other  two-thirds,  thus  binding  the 
skilled  class  to  the  companies  and  creating  divisions 
between  the  upper  third  and  the  rest  of  the  force. 
Wage  rates  in  the  iron  and  steel  industry  as  a  whole  are 
determined  by  the  rates  of  the  U.  S.  Steel  Corporation. « 
The  Steel  Corporation  sets  its  wage  rates,  the  same  as  its 
hour  schedules,  without  conference  (or  collective  bargain- 
ing), with  its  employees. 

Concerning  the  financial  ability  of  the  Corporation  to  pay 
higher  wages  the  following  must  be  noted  (with  the 
understanding  that  the  Commission's  investigation  did 
not  include  analysis  of  the  Corporation's  financial  organ- 
ization) :  the  Corporation  vastly  increased  its  undistrib- 
uted financial  reserves  during  the  Great  War.  In  1914  the 
Corporation's  total  undivided  surplus  was  $135,204,471.90. 
In  1919  this  total  undivided  surplus  had  been  increased  to 
493,048,201.93.    Compared  with  the  wage  budgets,  in  1918, 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  73 

the  Corporation's  final  surplus  after  paying  dividends  of 
$96,382,027  and  setting  aside  $274,277,835  for  Federal 
taxes  payable  in  1919,  was  $466,888,421, — a  sum  large 
enough  to  have  paid  a  second  time  the  total  wage  and 
salary  budget  for  1918  ($452,663,524),  and  to  have  left 
a  surplus  of  over  $14,000,000.  In  1919  the  undivided  sur- 
plus was  $493,048,201.93,  or  $13,000,000  more  than  the 
total  wage  and  salary  expenditures.  ^ 
Increases  in  wages  during  the  war  in  no  case  were  at  a 
sacrifice    of    stockholders'    dividends. 

Extreme  congestion  and  unsanitary  living  conditions, 
prevalent  in  most  Pennsylvania  steel  communities,  were 
•  largely  due  to  underpayment  of  semi-skilled  and  com- 
mon labor. 
9.  Grievances :  The  Steel  Corporation's  arbitrary  control 
of  hours  and  wages  extended  to  everything  in  individual 
steel  jobs,  resulting  in  daily  grievances. 
The  Corporation,  committed  to  a  non-union  system,  was 
as  helpless  as  the  workers  to  anticipate  these  grievances. 
The  grievances,  since  there  existed  no  working  ma- 
chinery of  redress,  weighed  heavily  in  the  industry,  be- 
cause they  incessantly  reminded  the  worker  that  he  had 
no  "say"  whatever  in  steel. 

Discrimination   against   immigrant  workers,  based  on   ri- 
valry of  economic  interests,  was  furthered  by  the  pres- 

*  Detailed  figures  on  the  Corporation's  surpluses,  accumulation  of  which 
was  begun  in   1901,  are: 

1913 — Total    undivided    surplus $151,798,428.89 

1914 — Total   undivided   surplus .  135,204,471.90 

191S — Total    undivided   surplus 180,025,328.74 

19 16 — Total   undivided  surplus 381.360,913.37 

19 1 7 — Total   undivided  surplus 431,660,803.63 

19 18 — Total  undivided  surplus 466,888,421.38 

1919 — Total  undivided   surplus 493,048,201.93 

This  report  does  not  go  into  the  long  dispute  over  the  Corporation's 
financing,   a   controversy   which   blazed    up   during  the   strike  but    not   as   a 

fart  of  the  issue.  A  typical  criticism  printed  about  this  time  was  the 
ollowing  from  the  Searchlight,  commenting  on  Basil  Manly's  analysis 
of  Senate  Document  250,  (a  report  from  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury)  : 
"On  the  basis  of  the  Steel  Corporation's  public  reporrs,  its  net  profits 
for  the  two  years  1916  and  1917,  'after  the  payment  of  interest  on  bonds, 
and  other  allowances  for  all  charges  growing  out  of  tlie  installation  of 
special  war  facilities,'  amounted,  according  to  Mr.  Manly,  to  $888,931,511. 
The  bonds  of  the  corporation  represent  all  the  money  actually  invested 
in   the   concern,    for   the   common   stock   is  'nothing  but   water.' 

"Of  course  out  of  the  net  income  the  Steel  Corporation  had  to  pay  its 
taxes  to  the  federal  government,  but  the  hundreds  of  millions  that  re- 
mained   represented    earning*   on    'shadow    dollars,'  " 


74  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

eiit  system  o£  control  and  resulted  in  race  divisions 
within  the  community. 

10.  Control:  The  arbitrary  control  of  the  Steel  Corpora- 
tion extended  outside  the  plants,  affecting  the  workers 
as  citizens  and  the  social  institutions  in  the  communities. 
The  steel  industry  was  under  the  domination  of  a  policy 
whose  aim  was  to  keep  out  labor  unions.  In  pursuit  of 
this  policy,  blacklists  were  used,  workmen  were  dis- 
charged for  union  affiliation,  "under-cover  men"  and 
"labor  detectives"  were  employed  and  efforts  were  made 
to  influence  the  local  press,  pulpit  and  police  authorities. 
In  Western  Pennsylvania  the  civil  rights  of  free  speech 
and  assembly  were  abrogated  without  just  cause,  both 
for  individuals  and  labor  organizations.  Personal  rights 
of  strikers  were  violated  by  the  State  Constabulary  and 
sheriff's  deputies. 

Federal  authorities,  in  some  cases,  acted  against  groups 
of  workmen  on  the  instigation  of  employees  of  steel 
companies.  In  many  places  in  Western  Pennsylvania, 
community  "authorities  and  institutions  were  subservient 
to  the  maintenance  of  one  corporation's  anti-union 
policies. 

11.  The  organizing  campaign  of  the  workers  and  the  strike 
were  for  the  purpose  of  forcing  a  conference  in  an  in- 
dustry where  no  means  of  conference  existed;  this 
specific  conference  to  set  up  trade  union  collective  bar- 
gaining, particularly  to  abolish  the  twelve-hour  day  and 
arbitrary  methods   of   handling   employees. 

12.  No  interpretation  of  the  movement  as  a  plot  or  con- 
spiracy fits  the  facts;  that  is,  it  was  a  mass  movement, 
in  which  leadership  became  of  secondary  importance. 

13.  Charges  of  bolshevism  or  of  industrial  radicalism  in 
the  conduct  of  the  strike  were  without  foundation. 

14.  The  chief  cause  of  the  defeat  of  the  strike  was  the 
size  of  the  Steel  Corporation,  together  with  the  strength 
of  its  active  opposition  and  the  support  accorded  it  by 
employers  generally,  by  governmental  agencies  and  by 
organs  of  public  opinion. 

15.  Causes  of  defeat,  second  in  importance  only  to  the 
fight  waged  by  the  Steel  Corporation,  lay  in  the  organ- 
ization and  leadership,  not  so  much  of  the  strike  itself, 
as  of  the  American  labor  movement. 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  75 

16.  The  immigrant  steel  worker  was  led  to  expect  more 
from  the  twenty-four  International  Unions  of  the  A.  F. 
of  L.  conducting  the  strike  than  they,  through  indiffer- 
ence,  selfishness  or   narrow  habit,  were   willing  to   give. 

17.  Racial  differences  among  steel  workers  and  an  immi- 
grant tendency  toward  industrial  unionism,  which  was 
combated  by  the  strike  leadership,  contributed  to  the 
disunity  of  the  strikers. 

18.  The  end  of  the  strike  was  marked  by  slowly  increasing 
disruption  of  the  new  unions;  by  bitterness  between 
the  "American"  and  "foreign"  worker  and  by  bitterness 
against  the  employer,   such  as  to  diminish  production. 

The  following  question  was  definitely  placed  before  the 
Commission  of  Inquiry:  Were  the  strikers  justified?  The  in- 
vestigation's data  seem  to  make  impossible  any  other  than 
this   conclusion : 

The  causes  of  the  strike  lay  in  grievances  which  gave  the 
workers  just  cause  for  complaint  and  for  action.  These  un- 
redressed grievances  still  exist  in  the  steel  industry. 

Recommendations : 
I.   Inasmuch  as — 

(a)  conditions  in  the  iron  and  steel  industry  depend  on  the 
conditions  holding  good  among  the  workers  of  the  U.S. 
Steel   Corporation,   and-— 

(b)  past  experience  has  proved  that  the  industrial  policies  of 
large-scale  producing  concerns  are  basically  influenced  by 
(i)  public  opinion  expressed  in  governmental  action,  (2) 
labor  unions,  which  in  this  case  have  failed,  or  (3)  by 
both,  and — 

(c)  permanent  solutions  for  the  industry  can  only  be  reached 
by  the  Steel  Corporation  in  free  cooperation  with  its  em- 
ployees,   therefore — 

It   is   recommended — 

(a)  that  the  Federal  Government  be  requested  to  initiate  the 
immediate  undertaking  of  such  settlement  by  bringing 
together  both  sides; 

(b)  that  the  Federal  Government,  by  presidential  order  or  by 
congressional  resolution,  set  up  a  commission  representing 
both  sides  and  the  public,  similar  to  the  Commission  result- 
ing from  the  coal  strike;  such  Commission  to — 


76  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

1.  inaugurate  immediate  conferences  between  the  Steel 
Corporation  and  its  employees  for  the  elimination  of 
the  i2-hour  day  and  the  7-day  week,  and  for  the 
readjustment   of   wage   rates; 

2.  devise  with  both  sides  and  establish  an  adequate  plan 
of  permanent  free  conference  to  regulate  the  conduct 
of    the   industry   in    the    future ; 

3.  continue  and  make  nation-wide  and  exhaustive  this 
inquiry   into   basic   conditions   in   the   industry. 

IL  Inasmuch  as- 

(a)  the  adminism^ion  of  civil  and  police  power  in  Western 
Pennsylvani^\|^s  created  many  injustices  which  persist, 
and — 

(b)  no  local  influenos^hctSw^cceeded  in  redressing  this  condition, 
therefore —  > 

It  is  recommended — 

(a)  that  the   Federal   Government  inaugurate   full  inquiry  into 

the  past  and  present  state  of    civil    liberties    in    Western 

Pennsylvania  and  publish  the  same. 

III.  Inasmuch  as — 

(a)  the  conduct  and  activities  of  "labor-detective"  agencies  do 
not  seem  to  serve  the  best  interests  of  the  country, 
and — 

(b)  the  Federal  Department  of  Justice  seems  to  have  placed 
undue  reliance  on  cooperation  with  corporations'  secret 
services,  therefore — 

It  is  recommended — 

(a)  that  the  Federal  Government  institute  investigation  for  the 
purpose  of  regulating  labor  detective  agencies ;  and  for  the 
purpose  of  publishing  what  government  departments  or 
public  moneys  are  utilized  to  cooperate  with  company 
"under-cover   men." 

IV.  It  is   recommended  that  the  proper   Federal  authorities  be 

requested  to  make  pubHc  two  reports  of  recent  investiga- 
tions of  conditions  in  the  steel  industry,  in  making  which 
public   money   was    spent,    and    to    explain   why  these    and 


THE  CLOSED   SHOP  77 

similar   reports  have   not  hitherto   been  made  pubUc,   and 
why    reports    which    were    printed    have    been    Hmited    to 
extremely  small  editions. 
(Reference  is  made  specifically  to  Mr.   Ethelbert   Stewart's 
report  on  civil  liberties  in  Western  Pennsylvania,  made  to  the 
Secretary  of  Labor ;  to  Mr.  George  P.  West's  report  made  to  the 
War  Labor  Board;  to  the  Testimony  of  the  Senate  Commit- 
tee's strike  investigation,  2  vols.,  printed  in  an  edition  of  1,000 
only;  and  to  Senate  Document  259.) 

V.  It  is  recommended  that  the  Industrial  Relations  Depart- 
ment of  the  Interchurch  World  Movement  continue  and 
supplement  the  present  inquiry  into  the  iron  and  steel  indus- 
try with  particular  reference  to — 

1.  Company   unions   and   shop    committees; 

2.  Social,  political  and  industrial  beliefs  of  the  immigrant 
worker ; 

3.  Present  aims  of  production  in  the  industry. 

4.  Conduct  of  trade  unions  with  reference  to  democracy 
and  to  responsibility. 

VI.  It  is  recommended  that  immediate  publication,  in  the  most 
effective  forms  possible,  be  obtained  for  this  report  with  its 
sub-reports. 


THE  OUTSIDER  IN  LABOR  DISPUTES  ^ 

The  spokesmen  of  the  various  employers'  associations  as- 
sert that  the  right  to  hire  and  fire  belongs  wholly  to  the  man- 
ufacturer. The  unions  and  their  sympathizers  deny  this. 
Everything  else  turns  upon  this  fundamental  conflict.  It  is 
easy  to  see  why  this  is  so.  If  the  employer  can  fire  and  hire 
at  any  time  for  any  reason  that  seems  good  to  him,  then  the 
worker  is  like  a  tenant  without  a  lease  dealing  with  a  land- 
lord who  can  issue  his  own  notices  of  eviction.  The  unlimited 
power  of  discharge  naturally  means  the  unlimited  irresponsi- 
bility of  the  worker.  For  an  industry  from  which  he  can  be 
evicted  at  any  time  can  obviously  make  no  claim  upon  him. 
If  he  can  be  fired  when  it  suits  his  employer,  he  works  to  suit 

^  New    Republic.    25:92.   December   22,    1920. 


78  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

himself.  When  prices  are  high  and  the  demand  for  labor  is 
brisk  he  puts  his  labor  up  at  auction  and  follows  the  highest 
pay  without  compunction  and  without  regard  to  the  future. 
For  him  there  is  no  future  that  he  can  take  into  account.  Even 
if  he  makes  himself  liked  with  the  boss,  and  is  familiarly 
called  Jack,  he  does  not  know  that  a  new  foreman  won't  take 
a  violent  dislike  to  him  four  weeks  hence.  And  all  the  while 
he  knows  perfectly  that  if  prices  fall,  he  may  be  on  the  street. 

That  loyalty,  cooperation,  harmony,  and  zeal  do  not  flour- 
ish easily  when  a  man  has  no  stake  in  an  enterprise  is,  we  be- 
lieve, everywhere  admitted.  What  does  the  excellent  advice 
about  owning  a  home  spring  from  except  the  knowledge  that 
a  man  will  not  care  for  a  community  in  which  he  is  a  mere 
transient?  What  are  the  schemes  for  distributing  stock  to 
employees  but  an  attempt  to  create  more  permanent  bonds  be- 
tween the  worker  and  his  industry?  Well,  the  recognition  of 
the  worker's  equity  in  his  job  is  not  only  more  important  than 
home  ownership  or  stock  ownership;  it  is  the  only  condition 
under  which  they  are  tolerable.  To  own  a  home  when  at  any 
day  you  may  have  to  move  out  of  town  is  not  to  acquire  prop- 
erty, but  an  entanglement.  It  is  to  jeopardize  everything  in- 
cluding your  savings.  For  if  the  job  is  insecure  in  the  sense 
that  it  depends  upon  the  will  or  the  whim  of  the  employer, 
then  there  is  no  use  preaching  loyalty  to  the  industry,  a  stake 
in  the  community,  or  personal  thrift. 

It  is,  therefore,  no  idle  phrase  when  people  characterize  the 
"open  shop"  campaign  as  radically  anti-social  and  morally 
destructive. 


LABOR  AND  THE  OPEN  SHOP ' 

We  cannot  agree  with  Senator  Poindexter  that  what  is 
known  as  the  "open  shop"  will  remedy  the  evils  which  he  so 
clearly  points  out.  Theoretically  every  worker,  whether  he  be 
a  hand-worker  or  brain-worker,  "should  be  free  to  pursue  his 
vocation  as  one  of  his  inalienable  rights."  But  the  history  of 
trade-unionism  shows  that  in  our  industrial  system  the  work- 
man was  not  free  to  pursue  his  vocation  when  the  "open  shop" 
was  the  prevailing  condition    in    factory,    mine,    railway,    and 

1  Outlook    (editorial).    125:11.    January   s,    1920. 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  79 

workshop.  The  open  shop  meant  the  absolute  control  of  the 
worker  by  the  employer.  Skilled  artisans  throughout  the  civil- 
ized world  have  come  to  believe,  and  we  think  their  belief  is 
justified  by  their  experience,  that  trade  unions  have  greatly 
improved  their  material  condition.  The  open  shop,  with  the 
essential  right  which  it  confers  on  the  employer  to  fix  wages, 
to  determine  conditions  and  hours  of  labor,  and  to  discharge 
at  will,  has  come  to  be  as  abhorrent  to  the  wage-worker  as 
Senator  Poindexter  says  the  trade  union  is  to  the  employer. 

Out  of  the  seventy-four  years'  struggle  for  supremacy  be- 
tween capital  and  labor  has  grown  the  present  system  of  col- 
lective bargaining  between  organizations  of  employers  and  or- 
ganizations of  workmen.  Whether  we  like  it  or  not,  we  can 
no  more  go  back  to  the  open  shop,  which  means  the  unques- 
tioned supremacy  of  the  employer,  than  we  can  go  back  to  the 
hand  loom  for  our  clothes  or  to  the  town  crier  for  our  news. 
We  can  palliate  the  evils  of  the  two  warring  camps  in  indus- 
try, the  combinations  of  capital  in  one  camp  and  the  trade  un- 
ions in  the  other,  by  compelling  both  to  submit  to  the  regula- 
tion of  law.  But  the  evils  can  be  removed  only  by  going  for- 
ward, not  backward. 

What  is  the  goal  of  such  forward  progress?  Partnership 
between  capital  and  labor  instead  of  antagonism  and  war-fare. 
Is  there  any  prospect  of  such  a  goal  being  reached?  To 
us  the  prospect  seems  brighter  to-day,  in  spite  of  the  crippling 
strikes  in  productive  industry,  than  it  has  been  for  twenty-five 
years. 

The  promise  for  the  future  lies  in  the  rapid  spread  among 
both  employers  and  employees  of  the  idea  of  what  is  called 
in  general  terms  Industrial  Democracy,  or  in  specific  language 
the  Shop  Committee  Plan.  The  fundamental  principle  of  this 
idea  is  that  the  wage-workers  shall  have,  through  the  election 
of  delegates  or  committees,  some  voice  in  the  management  of 
mdustry,  especially  as  regards  hours  and  conditions  of  labor, 
productive  efficiency,  and  profits.  If,  through  the  practical  ap- 
plication of  this  principle,  capital  and  labor  can  be  converted 
from  inimical  and  mutually  suspicious  antagonists  into  partners 
working  for  mutual  interests  and  with  mutual  confidence, 
American  industry  may  enter  upon  a  phase  of  productive  effi- 
ciency and  creative  satisfaction  such  as  it  has  never  known  be- 
fore in  its  entire  history. 


8o     •  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

STATEMENT  ISSUED  BY  THE  NATIONAL 
CATHOLIC  WELFARE  COUNCIL^ 

The  Social  Action  Department  of  the  National  Catholic 
Welfare  Council  makes  the   following  statement : 

The  "open  shop"  drive  of  certain  groups  of  American  em- 
ployers is  becoming  so  strong  that  it  threatens  not  only  the 
welfare  of  the  wage-earners,  but  the  whole  structure  of  indus- 
trial peace  and  order.  Employers  sometimes  favor  the  "open 
shop"  because  they  do  not  want  to  be  limited  in  the  employ- 
ment of  men  to  union  members.  But  the  present  drive  is  not 
of  that  kind.  The  evidence  shows  that  in  its  organized  form 
it  is  not  merely  against  the  "closed  shop,"  but  against  unionism 
itself  and  particularly  against  collective  bargaining.  Of  what 
avail  is  it  for  workers  to  be  permitted  by  their  employers  to 
become  members  of  unions,  if  the  employers  will  not  deal  with 
the  unions?  The  workers  might  as  well  join  golf  clubs  as 
labor  unions  if  the  present  "open  shop"  campaign  is  successful. 

The  "open  shop"  drive  masks  under  such  names  as  "The 
American  Plan"  and  hides  behind  the  pretence  of  American 
freedom.  Yet  its  real  purpose  is  to  destroy  all  effective  labor 
unions,  and  thus  subject  the  working  people  to  the  complete 
domination  of  the  employers.  Should  it  succeed  in  the  mea- 
sure that  its  proponents  hope  it  will  thrust  far  into  the  ranks 
of  the  underpaid  the  body  of  American  working  people. 

The  Bishops  of  the  National  Catholic  War  Council  who  is- 
sued the  program  of  Social  Reconstruction  said :  "It  is  to  be 
hoped  that  this  right — the  right  of  labor  to  organize  and  to 
deal  with  employers  through  representatives  will  never  again 
be  called  into  question  by  any  considerable  group  of  employ- 
ers." The  Archbishops  and  Bishops  of  the  United  States  in 
their  Pastoral  Letter  proclaimed  again  "the  right  of  the  work- 
ers to  form  and  maintain  the  kind  of  organization  that  is  nec- 
essary and  that  will  be  most  effectual  in  securing  their  wel- 
fare." 

During  the  war  the  National  War  Labor  Board  recognized 
and  protected  a  genuine  kind  of  "open  shop",  one  which  as- 
sured the  non-union  man  freedom  and  the  members  of  the  un- 
ion the  right  of  collective  bargaining.  That  is  not  the  kind  of 
"open  shop"  for  which  the  drive  is  now  being  made. 

*  Statement  issued  in  multigraphed  form,   November,    1020. 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  81 

The  unions  were  necessary  even  during  the  war  when  work- 
ing-people found  their  labor  in  great  demand.  They  are  still 
more  imperative  now,  and  they  must  keep  their  strength  and 
grow.  Otherwise  we  shall  see  a  repitition  of  the  old  bad  days 
when  the  workers  were  utterly  dependent  upon  their  em- 
ployers. 

There  is  great  danger  that  the  whole  nation  will  be  harmed 
by  this  campaign  of  a  few  groups  of  strong  employers.  To 
aim  now  at  putting  into  greater  subjection  the  workers  in  in- 
dustry is  blind  and  foolhardy.  The  radical  movements  and 
disturbances  in  Europe  ought  to  hold  a  lesson .  for  the  employ- 
ers of  America.  And  the  voice  of  the  American  people  ought 
to  be  raised  in  the  endeavor  to  drive  this  lesson  home. 


STATEMENT    ISSUED    BY    THE    FEDERAL 

COUNCIL   OF   THE   CHURCHES    OF 

CHRIST  IN  AMERICA 

Release  Monday,  December  27,  1920 

Federal  Council  of  the  Churches  of  Christ  in   America 

Department  of  Information 

Jasper  T.  Moses,   Director 

105  East  22nd  Street,  New  York. 

Church  Commission  Questions  Fairness  of  "Open  Shop" 
Movement 

A  statement  bearing  on  the  present  "open  shop"  agitation  has 
been  issued  by  the  Commission  on  the  Church  and  Social  Ser- 
vice of  the  Federal  Council  of  the  Churches  of  Christ  in  Amer- 
ica. The  questions  raised  by  the  commission  are  of  especial 
significance  in  view  of  the  revelations  of  the  Lockwood  housing 
investigation  in  New  York.  The  statement  voices  the  repre- 
sentative Protestant  view  on  the  "open  shop  drive"  which  is  in 
thorough  accord  with  the  recent  utterance  of  the  National  Cath- 
olic Welfare  Council. 

The  statement  of  the  Commission  on  the  Church  and  Social 
Service  is  as  follows : 

The  relation  between  employers  and  workers  throughout  the  United 
States  are  seriously  aflFected  at  this  moment  by  a  campaign  which  is  be- 
ing conducted  for  the  "open  shop"  policy — the  so-called  "American  Plan" 
of  employment.  These  terms  are  now  being  frequently  used  to  designate 
establishments    that    are    definitely    anti-union.      Obviously,    a    shop    of    thin 


82  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

kind  is  not  an  "open  shop"  but  a  "closed  shop" — closed  against  members 
of  labor  unions. 

We  feel  impelled  to  call  public  attention  to  the  fact  that  a  very 
widespread  impression  exists  that  the  present  "open  shop"  campaign  is 
inspired  in  many  quarters  by  this  antagonism  to  union  labor.  Many  dis- 
interested persons  are  convinced  that  an  attempt  is  being  made  to  de- 
stroy the  organized  labor  movement.  Any  such  attempt  must  be  viewed 
with  apprenhension  by  fair-minded  people.  When,  for  example,  an  ap- 
plicant for  work  is  compelled  to  sign  a  contract  pledging  himself  against 
affiliation  with  a  union,  or  when  a  union  man  is  refused  employment  or 
discharged,  merely  on  the  ground  of  union  membership,  the  employer  is 
using  coercive  methods  and  is  violating  the  fundamental  principles  of 
an  open  shop.  Such  action  is  as  unfair  and  inimical  to  economic  free- 
dom and  to  the  interest  of  society  as  is  corresponding  coercion  exercised 
by    labor    bodies    in    behalf    of   the    closed  shop. 

It  seems  incumbent  upon  Christian  employers  to  scrutinize  carefully 
any  movement,  however,  plausible,  which  is  likely  to  result  in  denying 
to  the  workers  such  affiliation  as  will  in  their  judgment  best  safeguard 
their  interests  and  promote  their  welfare,  and  to  precipitate  disastrous 
industrial  conflicts  at  a  time  when  the  country  needs  goodwill  and  co- 
operation   between    employers    and    employees. 


THE  UNION  SHOP  AND  THE  "OPEN"  SHOP ' 

Agreements  for  the  closed  shop,  says  the  court,  are  void 
because  they  tend  to  create  a  monopoly;  because  they  dis- 
criminate against  workmen   who  are  not  members  of  unions. 

Think  of  the  absurdity  of  this  argument! 

Does  not  any  contract  with  A  exclude  B,  C,  D,  and  all  the 
rest?  Let  the  reader  mentally  question  himself  somewhat  as 
follows : 

*Tf  I  have  work  to  do  am  I  bound  to  give  it  to  a  dozicn, 
men   instead  of  to  one  man?" 

"If  I  am  a  real  estate  owner  and  build  a  whole  row  of 
houses  must  I  employ  as  many  architects  and  contractors  as 
there  are  houses  in  the   row?" 

"If  I  am  an  owner  of  a  mill  and  need  raw  material  for 
the  production  of  cotton  cloth  must  T  buy  my  cotton  of  a 
number  of  parties?" 

"Does  any  law  prohibit  my  making  a  contract  with  one 
planter   for  all  the   raw  cotton  I   need?" 

What  difference  is  there  between  buying  raw'  material  or 
tools  and  machinery  and  employing  labor? 

Is  the  employer  obliged  to  make  individual  contracts  with 
workmen  ? 

Is  it  the  business  of  any  one  whether  he  employs  union 
men  or  non-union  men? 

1  Samuel    Gompers,    in   pamphlet    "Open    Shop   Editorials." 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  83 

If  it  IS  not,  and  he  chooses  to  make  a  contract  with  a  un- 
ion, has  anybody  the  right  to  object?  .   .  . 

A  manufacturer  may  buy  all  his  raw  material,  all  his  ma- 
chinery, from  one  company.  No  one  is  idiotic  enough  to  Icll 
him  that  he  must  patronize  a  dozen  different  companies.  Why 
may  not,  if  he  be  "American,"  close  his  shop  to  all  workmen 
his  shop  to  all  manufacturers  of  raw  material  except  one;  he 
may  he  not  buy  all  his  labor  of  one  union?  He  may  close 
but  those  who  are  members  of  a  given  union  which  offers  to 
supply  him  with  labor.   .  .  . 

And  why  should  not  the  union  man  work  with  and  beside 
the  non-union  man?  That,  frankly,  is  none  of  the  employer's 
business.  Labor  is  under  no  obligation  to  justify  its  likes  and 
dislikes  to  him.  We  were  constantly  told  that  supply  and  de- 
mand regulated  the  employment  of  labor,  and  that  the  market 
was  free  and  should  remain  so.  This  being  the  case  (we 
grant  it  for  the  argument's  sake),  the  workman  may  say  to 
the  employer  that  he  will  not  work  for  him  except  on  certain 
terms,  which  terms  may  include  an  agreement  on  the  employ- 
er's part  to  engage  no  men  obnoxious  to  him. 

These  propositions  cannot  be  denied.  No  one  has  been 
hardy  enough  to  contend  that  union  men  may  be  compelled  to 
work  with  non-union  men,  or  that  the  former  may,  by  law  or 
judicial  process,  be  prohibited  from  striking  against  the  em- 
ployment of  the  latter.  In  view  of  these  facts,  what  life  or 
meaning  is  there  left  in  the  "open  shop"  proposition?  .  .  . 

As  was  pointed  out  in  the  open  letter  issued  by  the  Exec- 
utive Council  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  we  do  not 
deny  the  right  of  the  non-union  man  to  work  where,  when, 
and  for  whomsoever  he  pleases.  We  simply  insist  upon  the 
same  right  of  all  union  men  to  refuse  to  associate  with  them 
in  factory  or  in  the  club,  and  we  insist  upon  our  right  to  tell 
employers  that  they  must  have  either  union  shops  or  non-un- 
ion shops.  They  will  not  bully  us  into  working  under  objec- 
•  tionable  conditions  by  affecting  to  believe  in  any  straw  or  im- 
possible "principle."  If  they  want  our  labor,  they  must  make 
it  pleasant  for  us  to  work  for  them.  .  .  . 

Since  every  man  has  the  right  to  sell  his  labor  as  he  sees 
fit,  he  has  the  right  not  to  sell  it  to  the  employer  who  wants 
an    "open    shop." 

Every  man  has  the  right  to  say:  "I  will  not  work  for  you 


84  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

unless  you  make  a  contract  with  the  union  to  which  I  belong, 
and  agree  to  employ  none  but  members  of  that  union."  To 
say  that  he  may  not  say  this  is  equivalent  to  saying  that  he 
must  sell  his  labor,  not  as  he  sees  fit,  but  as  the  employer 
sees  fit.  .   .  . 

Even  if  all  the  courts  in  the  country  should  decide  that  the 
union  shop  contract  is  illegal,  an  impossible  supposition,  the 
union  shop  would  not  disappear.  The  only  result  would  be 
that  no  such  contract  would  be  made;  the  condition  would  be 
enforced   without   written  contract. 

You  can  not,  the  courts  of  the  United  States  can 
not,  force  American  citizens  to  work  for  employers  they  do 
not  trust  or  like,  or  associate  with  workmen  they  do  not  like 
or    respect. 

Men  can  not  be  imprisoned  for  refusing  to  work  imder 
certain  conditions  and  the  injunction  can  not  be  employed  in 
such  a  case.     .    .     . 

So  much  for  this,  for  the  open  shop  nonsense  is  general. 
As  to  our  friends,  the  clothiers,  fair  newspapers  have  pointed 
out  that  even  those  who  do  not  like  the  union  shop  prefer  it 
to  the  sweat  shop.  We  quote  the  following  from  the  Boston 
Transcript,  a   conservative  and   dignified   newspaper : 

Some  years  ago,  when  the  shops  were  "free  and  open,"  the  employ- 
ment of  an  American  in  the  clothing  shop  was  the  exception.  The  gar- 
ment maker  took  advantage  of  unrestricted  immigration,  and  filled  the 
sweat  shops  with  the  cheap  labor  of  distressed  European  refugees  until 
the  condinons  became  so  appalling  that  society  stepped  in  and  laws  were 
enacted  .o  improve  the  sanitary  condition  of  the  shops  and  limit  the 
hours  of  labor  of  women  and  children.  The  manufacturer  who  had 
brutalized  the  clothing  operatives  by  taking  advantage  of  the  supply  of 
labor  \n  the  <)iarket  was  compelled  to  halt  by  the  exercise  of  a  vigorous 
humane   i)ublic   ^sentiment,   not  bv  their  own  disposition. 

Now  it  is  all  very  well  to  talk  about  the  "old  American  system"  and 
win  a  little  applause  for  seeming  patriotism,  but  it  is  not  within  reason- 
able comprehension  that  a  return  to  th?  primitive  conditions  of  clothing 
manufacture  in  this  country  is  possible.  The  sweat  shop  is  distinctly  un- 
American,  and  anything  which  tends  to  bring  it  back  must  be  resisted 
by  an  enlightened  public  sentiment.  Indeed,  if  we  are  to  return  to  a 
distinctly  American  system  we  must  go  back  of  the  sweat  shop  to  the 
time  when  the  wool  was  cut  from  the  back  of  the  sheep,  carded,  and 
spun   and  the   clothing  made   at  home.      .      .     . 

The  unions,  through  the  "closed"  shops,  abolished  the  sweat 
shop  and  secured  for  the  garment  workers  the  right  of  con- 
tract, an  "American"  right,  and  decent  conditions. 

We  could  call  attention  to  a  symposium  in  the  July  num- 
ber of  the  Monthly  Review  of  the  Civic  Federation  on  the 
question  of  the  "closed"  shop.  Eight  lawyers  discussed  the 
Adams  opinion  and  only  one  of  them,  a  corporation  and  trust 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  85 

attorney  of  Chicago,  upheld  the  veiw  that  a  union  shop  con- 
tract is  void  and  contrary  to  public  policy.  Some  of  these  ar- 
ticles used  language  nearly  as  that  which  we,  a  lay  critic,  used 
in  our  editorial  last  month.     Let  us  give  a  few  extracts : 

Mr.  John  Frankenheimer,  of  New  York,  says :  "There  can 
be  nothing  illegal  in  the  efforts  of  unionists  to  make  the  shop 
in  which  they  work  a  union  shop,  that  is,  to  agree  with  the 
employer  as  a  condition  of  rendering  services  to  him  that  he 
will  employ  only  members  of  the  union.  The  employer  is  at 
liberty  to  refuse  to  limit  employment  to  unionists,  but  if  he 
does  this  the  unionist  must  be  at  liberty  to  cease  to  work  for 
him,  that  is  to  strike." 

Mr.  John  B.  Parsons,  of  New  York,  writes :  "They  (work- 
ingmen)  may  strike  without  notice  and  under  circumstances 
which  are  most  favorable  to  the  accomplishment  of  their 
wishes,  even  if  most  injurious  to  their  employers,  always  pro- 
vided that  they  do  not  resort  to  criminal  means  or  to  anything 
which  is  in  the  nature  of  intimidation  or  violence,  and  equally 
do  I  understand  that  in  the  absence  of  statutory  legislation  to 
the  contrary  it  is  the  right  of  employers  to  employ  or  not  to 
employ  whom  they  choose,  and  to  make  with  their  workmen 
any  agreements   which  are  for  mutual  interests,   etc." 

Mr.  William  V.  Rooker,  of  Indianapolis,  says:  "It  is  to  be 
supposed  that  if  some  paper  manufacturer  were  to  agree  that 
for  a  certain  price  for  a  certain  quality  he  would  for  a  certain 
time  furnish  the  Chicago  Tribune  all  its  white  paper,  that  con- 
tract, according  to  Judge  Adams,  would  create  a  monopoly  and 
be  void  .  .  .  Judge  Adams  seems  to  be  suffering  from 
judicial  strabismus  to  the  extent  that  he  can  not  see  that  the 
employers'  constitutional  right  to  contract  would  be  destroyed 
rather  than  conserved  by  such  a  rule."- 

Mr.  Jackson  H.  Ralston,  of  Washington,  D.C.,  writes:  "The 
learned  court  ignores  the  fact  that  labor  is  property,  so  to 
speak,  in  the  hands  of  the  laborer  quite  as  much  as  a  right  to 
do  business  is  property  in  the  hands  of  the  head  of  a  mercan- 
tile establishment.  .  .  .  Suppose  they  (organized  workmen) 
unitedly  determine  not  to  labor  in  association  with  negroes  or 
under  a  red-haired  foreman  or  with  men  of  another  national- 
ity, why  may  they  not  do  so?  In  so  doing  they  simply  dis- 
pose of  their  own  property  as  deemed  meet  by  them." 

Mr.  Louis  D.  Brandeis,  of  Boston,  writes:  "It  does  not  in- 
terfere with  an  employer's  right  of  contract  to  induce  him  to 


86  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

enter  into  a  certain  contract.  Every  contract  which  any  per- 
son enters  into  interferes  in  some  way  with  his  future  free- 
dom of  contract  of  other  action.  The  "right  of  contract"  is 
the  right  to  restrict  one's  freedom  of  action.  No  sufficient  rea- 
son suggests  itself  why  he  (an  employer)  should  not  be  per- 
mitted to  agree  in  advance  for  a  limited  time  or  until  further 
notice  to  employ  only  union  men." 


THE  OPEN  SHOP  CRUSADE^ 

In  Chicago,  at  a  business  men's  convention,  one  of  the 
speakers  assures  his  colleagues  that  "in  a  little  while  the  un- 
ion labor  man  will  be  eating  out  of  his  employer's  hand."  In 
New  York  a  semi-public  employment  service  reports  that 
while  jobs  were  plentiful  two  months  ago,  "now  we  are  lucky 
if  we  place  one-fifth  of  those  who  are  seeking  work."  In  De- 
troit, Philadelphia,  Cleveland,  every  other  industrial  centre  in 
the  country,  organized  labor  is  excitedly  whipping  together 
some  sort  of  defence  against  an  expected  assault  by  capital. 
Every  straw  in  the  wind  indicates  that  a  large  group  of  dis- 
satisfied employers,  taking  advantage  of  a  moment  when  it  is 
profitable  to  suspend  production  rather  than  dump  goods  on  a 
falling  market,  are  preparing  to  launch  against  union  labor 
perhaps  the  greatest  offensive  of  the   last  dozen  years. 

Locally,  in  this  struggle  which  seems  to  be  impending,  the 
issues  may  be  varied  and  complex.  Nationally,  one  issue  will 
overshadow  all  the  others.  Away  with  the  autocracy  of  la- 
bor! will  be  the  battle-cry.  Give  us  the  Open  Shop!  Already 
this  cry  is  raised.  In  a  statement  that  has  rallied  all  those 
employers  who  want  "a  show-down,"  the  chairman  of  the  Re- 
publican Publicity  Association  in  Washington  brands  the 
closed  shop  as  "exclusive,  monopolistic  and  domineering,"  It 
is  "rule  or  ruin."  It  destroys  "the  independence  of  the  in- 
dividual," spells  disaster  for  production,  transcends,  in  short, 
"anything  dreamed  of  by  rapacious  monarchs." 

If  an  attack  upon  the  unions  is  in  fact  impending,  it  will 
be  the  most  natural  thing  in  the  world  for  employers  to  dub 
it  a  crusade  for  the  open  shop.  That  battle-cry  will  be  used 
again,  just  as  it  has  so  often  been  used  in  the  past,  because 
it   is   the    most    effective    anti-union    weapon.     It    can    be    so 

» New  Republic.     25:28-30.    December  8,   1920. 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  87 

phrased  as  to  appeal  to  something  Americans  have  been  taught 
to  esteem,  though  not  always  able  to  attain:  freedom  of  choice 
for  the  individual  man  and  woman.  Why  should  any  man  be 
obliged  to  "join  a  union"  for  the  privilege  of  going  to  work 
where  and  as  he  chooses?  What  is  the  advantage  of  getting 
rid  of  one  autocracy  only  to  become  victim  of  another? 

The  answer  of  many  labor  leaders,  of  course,  is  that  only 
by  presenting  a  united  front  (i.e.,  through  the  closed  shop) 
can  an  existing  autocracy  be  done  away  with  and  the  reaction- 
ary employer  prevented  from  ruling  his  shop  as  despot.  To 
banish  an  autocracy  that  actually  exists,  it  is  worth  while  to 
run  the  risk  of  substituting  an  autocracy  that  is  still  largely 
theoretical.  Moreover,  argue  these  leaders,  the  risk  is  never 
great;  since  the  trade  union,  unlike  the  factory,  is  capable  of 
control  by  popular  referendum  of  its  personnel.  From  this 
starting-point  the  argument  branches  off  in  a  hundred  different 
ways.  Turn  from  that  argument  for  the  moment:  how  in- 
tegral a  part  of  labor's  fighting  program  has  the  demand  for 
a  closed  shop  ever  been?  If  "the  menace  of  the  closed  shop" 
is  much  more  than  a  paper  menace,  a  bogey  to  be  raised  at  a 
convenient  moment,  then  the  record  of  industrial  conflict  in 
America  will  show  that  foremost  among  the  causes  of  great 
strikes  has  been  the  demand  of  labor  for  the  closed  shop. 

As  a  matter  of  fact  the  record  shows  nothing  of  the  sort. 
The  history  of  conflict  between  the  union  and  the  modern 
"trust"  dates,  perhaps,  from  Homestead  (1892).  Was  the 
closed  shop  the  issue  of  the  Homestead  strike?  No.  Carnegie 
Brothers  and  Company  simply  warned  the  unions  that  if  they 
did  not  accept  its  wage  scale  then  Carnegie  Brothers  and 
Company  would  proceed  to  deal  with  its  employers  as  indi- 
viduals. Preservation  of  the  union  was  the  definite  issue  upon 
which  the  strike  began.  It  lasted  five  months ;  ended  with  the 
unions  defeated  and  the  strong-arm  tactics  of  the  employer 
justified.  Three  other  great  strikes  marked  that  troublesome 
year,  and  in  none  of  them  did-  the  issue  of  the  open  shop  fig- 
ure any  more  substantially.  The  miners'  strike  in  the  Coeur 
d'Alene  district  of  Idaho,  still  the  most  spectacular  of  all  in- 
dustrial struggles  in  America,  was  a  strike  against  periodic 
wage  reductions.  The  switchmen's  strike  in  Buffalo  aimed  at 
a  ten-hour  day.  The  coal-miners  of  Tennessee  struck  in  pro- 
test against  the  competitive  use  of  convict  labor.  Of  four 
great  strikes  in  1892,  strikes  still  fresh  in  the  memory  of  em- 


88  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

ployers  and  of  labor,  not  one  was  for  the  closing  of  a  shop. 
A  threat  against  the  life  of  one  union,  periodic  wage  reduc- 
tions for  another,  a  workday  of  more  than  ten  hours,  the  use 
of  convict  labor— these  were  the  causes,  none  too  creditable 
to  capital,  which  provoked  strikes  that  tied  up  industry  for 
many  months. 

Through  the  history  of  industrial  conflicts  in  the  years 
which  have  followed,  the  story  is  much  the  same.  The  Mine 
Workers'  strike  of  1894  was  directed  not  towards  a  closed  shop 
but  against  a  further  cut  in  wages.  The  Pullman  strike  in 
Chicago,  which  led  to  the  arrest  of  Eugene  Debs  and  other 
leaders,  and  to  the  calling  out  of  federal  troops  by  President 
Cleveland,  was  a  strike  for  the  restoration  of  wages  that  had 
been  paid  the  previous  year.  Where  was  the  closed  shop  is- 
sue at  Lowell  or  at  Paterson,  or  in  that  anthracite  coal  strike 
which  brought  President  Roosevelt  into  the  controversy? 
Long  hours,  attempts  to  reduce  wages,  attempts  to  destroy 
every  vestige  of  union  labor  power — these,  and  not  the  issue 
of  the  closed  shop,  have  been  the  most  fruitful  causes  of  in- 
dustrial warfare  in  America.  We  have,  in  the  last  year  or 
two,  had  threats  of  strikes  on  the  part  of  the  railway  work- 
ers. Never  has  the  closed  shop  been  the  issue.  In  one  in- 
stance it  was  hours ;  in  another,  wages.  -We  have  had  a  strike 
of  coal-miners.  The  issue,  again,  was  hours  and  wages.  We 
have  had  a  steel  strike,  four  months  of  misery  for  many 
thousands  of  men  and  women ;  nowhere  among  the  demands 
of  the  strikers  was  there  an  ultimatum  for  the  closed  shop. 
It  was,  in  fact,  for  an  open  shop,  in  the  sense  that  union  men 
might  work  alongside  non-union  men  in  blast-furnaces  and 
rolling-mills,  that  so  many  workmen  downed  their  tools  and 
fought  the  most  powerful  trust  of  modern  times. 

In  short,  those  employers  who  attempt  habitually  to  focus 
the  attention  of  the  public  on  the  issue  of  the  open  shop,  and 
upon  that  issue  to  the  exclusion  of  every  other,  are  neglecting 
in  their  enthusiasm  those  very  factors  which  have  steadily 
been  the  cause  of  trouble  in  the  past.  It  is  not  hard  to  see 
why  this  should  be  the  case.  Workdays  that  run  to  twelve 
hours;  shifts  that  sometimes  keep  a  man  on  duty  eighteen 
hours  at  a  stretch;  wages  that  do  not.  match  the  government's 
own  figures  for  an  income  necessary  to  maintain  a  decent 
standard  of  living;  a  policy  of  discharging  able  workmen 
simply  because  they  are  members  of  a  union,  and  of  keeping 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  89 

them  out  of  future  jobs  by  virtue  of  the  "black-list" — these  are 
factors  productive  of  industrial  warfare,  but  factors  which  the 
reactionary  employer  cannot  easily  justify  in  the  public's  eyes. 
Result:  to  shift  the  issue,  to  conceal  his  real  fears  and  hopes, 
the  reactionary  employer  dwells  upon  the  closed  shop  and  the 
peril  it   will  bring. 

The  issue  of  the  open  shop,  nine  times  out  of  ten,  is  a 
smoke-screen  behind  which  the  reactionary  employer  can  mass 
his  guns  for  a  totally  different  sort  of  attack.  That  is  the 
first  fact  to  be  remembered  as  we  approach  the  conflict  which 
is  threatening  today.  And  the  second  fact  is  that  responsibil- 
ity for  the  struggle,  if  the  struggle  comes,  rests  on  the  side 
of  capital.  Consider  the  situation.  A  combination  of  special 
circumstances  has  indeed  produced  in  many  of  our  larger  cities 
a  closed  shop  in  the  building  trades — and  the  same  set  of  spe- 
cial circumstances,  we  believe,  rather  than  the  fact  of  the 
closed  shop  itself,  has  turned  those  building  trades  into  a  dis- 
grace to  organized  labor;  but  in  no  other  industry  has  the 
closed  shop  gone  equally  far,  or  followed  the  same  set  of  eth- 
ics. The  railway  brotherhoods,  with  power  to  fight  for  a 
closed  shop,  have  preferred  the  open  shop,  trusting  to  the 
good  sense  of  non-union  workmen  to  join  the  brotherhood 
once  they  witness  what  it  can  accomplish  for  its  members. 
That  is  generally  the  case  wherever  union  'labor  is  established. 
Is  there  one  instance  today,  in  the  whole  country,  of  a  single 
important  union  threatening  to  strike  for  the  closing  of  a 
shop?  Labor  is  nowhere  taking  the  offensive.  That  fact, 
perhaps,  seems  too  obvious  today  to  be  worth  recording.  But 
later  on,  if  the  battle  is  begun,  the  powerful  engines  of  the 
press  will  be  brought  into  service  to  prove  the  whole  war  was 
willed  by  union   labor. 

Union  labor  is  on  the  defensive.  If  the  attack  of  the  re- 
actionary employers  comes,  the  unions  will  turn  of  course  to 
the  public  for  assistance.  They  will  trust  that  the  public  has 
accepted  the  principles  of  trade  unionism.  No  doubt  the  pub- 
lic's response  would  be  heartier  had  the  leaders  of  union  la- 
bor shown  more  interest  in  that  factor  which  the  public  is 
most  interested  in.  This  factor  is  production.  And  Avhile  the 
old-time  chieftains  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  have 
regularly  declared  themselves  interested  in  production,  they 
have  never  proposed  labor's  willingness  to  undertake  part  res- 
ponsibility  for   it.  They  have,   in   fact,   done   their  best   to  beat 


90  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

down  proposals  like  the  Plumb  Plan  which  aimed  at  just  that 
responsibility  on  labor's  part  Organized  capital  would,  of 
course,  have  fought  bitterly  against  such  a  change  in  labor's 
status;  but  by  broadening  the  base  of  their  pyramid  so  as  to 
represent  in  larger  measure  the  interests  of  the  unorganized 
public  as  well  as  the  workers,  trade  union  leaders  would  have 
entrenched  themselves  more  strongly  for  the  battle  which  they 
face  today. 

Those  employers  who  want  to  "go  to  the  mat  with  labor" 
are  in  an  odd  position.  After  inveighing  against  labor  for 
more  than  two  years  for  its  failure  to  increase  production, 
here  they  are — now  proposing  to  cut  down  production  not  be- 
cause the  world  has  less  need  of  goods  but  because  they  want 
to  safeguard  prices.  Meantime  many  of  these  employers  are 
preparing  to  don  armor  and  uphold  the  open  shop.  What 
they  really  mean — had  they  the  courage  to  say  it — is  that  they 
are  preparing  for  an  assault  upon  trade  unionism.  It  will  be 
a  misfortune  if  they  succeed  in  breaking  union  strength.  Trade 
unionism  is  a  necessary  safeguard  against  exploitation,  the 
one  adequate  means  of  organizing  a  supply  of  labor.  When 
the  unions  have  the  privilege  of  coming  into  any  industry  on 
a  preferential  basis  (i.e.,  neither  a  closed  shop  nor  a  non-un- 
ion shop),  and  when  these  unions  are  open  to  any  working 
man  or  woman  who  wishes  to  enlist,  a  premise  is  established 
for  the  growth  of  democratic  power.  But  when  that  premise 
has  been  challenged,  when  the  reactionary  employers  of  the 
country  seek  a  chance  to  crush  the  unions,  then  the  fight  be- 
comes the  public's  fight  as  well  as  the  cause  of  union  labor. 


UNION  AND  THE  OPEN  SHOP' 

A  well-known  employer  has  said,  "The  existence  of  unions 
shows  that  we  have  not  done  our  duty  as  employers."  This 
candid  remark  has  been  repeated  as  though  it  explained  the 
cause  of  the  existence  of  labor  unions.  If  this  explanation  be 
true,  then  the  trade  unions  are  only  temporary  expedients  whose 
mission  is  fulfiilled  when  the  grievances  that  brought  them  in- 
to being  are  redressed.  That  seems  plausible  as  a  quick  and 
off-hand  solution  of  the  perplexing  labor  problem. 

^  Henry  White.    American  Economic  Association.    Proceedings.  4:173-82. 

IQ0.1. 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  91 

H  we  investigate  more  closely,  however,  we  find  that  the 
movement  of  the  wage-workers  has  quite  another  aspect;  that 
while  ill  treatment  has  something  to  do  with  its  existence,  it 
only  partly  accounts  for  it.  It  is  seen  that  this  phenomenon  is 
world-wide,  that  it  is  social  as  well  as  economic,  that  it  is 
peculiar  to  all  countries  where  the  modern  productive  system 
exists,  that  it  is  as  pronounced  in  localities  where  the  conditions 
are  most  favorable  and  where  the  workers  are  skilled  and  well 
paid.  The  student  soon  ascertains  that,  the  unions  represent  a 
working  class  struggle,  a  striving  upward  of  that  great  useful  ele- 
ment in  society  which,  with  the  single  exception  of  the  guild,  has 
always  been  mute  and  defenseless.  The  labor  union  movement 
implies  an  orderly  effort,  not  only  to  wrest  concessions  from 
the  employer,  but  also  to  secure  recognition  from  society.  It 
is  a  movement  which  seeks  to  change  the  present  standards 
by  which  the  laborers'  share  in  production  is  decided,  and 
disputes  the  right  of  the  employer  alone  to  determine  what  fair 
treatment  should  be.  The  distinction  is  fundamental,  and  is  the 
difference  between  democracy  and  autocracy.  In  reality  it  is  in- 
dustrial democracy  that  the  unions  aim  at,  and  it  is  that  which 
brings  them  into  harmony  with  the  world-wide  tendency  of 
•  the  times.  The  individual  members  may- not  be  conscious  of 
this  purpose,  but  such  is  the  effect  of  their  action.  The  mere 
coming  together  of  the  wage-workers  to  consult  is  a  departure 
that  leads  to  far-reaching  consequences. 

What  the  employer  whom  I  have  referred  to  had  in  mind 
was  the  old  conception  of  just  treatment  by  simply  giving  his 
employees  what  he  in  his  own  opinion  could  afford.  A  sweater 
can  offer  the  same  reason.  An  employer  who  does  not  con- 
tend that  he  is  paying  as  much  as  his  business  will  allow  would 
be  a  curiosity.  Furthermore,  no  matter  how  good  an  employer's 
intentions,  he  can  not  allay  the  discontent  with  economic  con- 
ditions ;  and  owing  to  the  limitations  of  competition,  it  would 
even  be  beyond  his  power  individually  to  concede  to  his  work- 
men conditions  substantially  better  than  prevailing  standards. 
So  we  see  that  the  problem  is  not  a  matter  of  the  liberality  of 
the  individual  employers,  but  of  general  conditions  that  can 
be  improved  only  by  a  uniform  upward  pressure  which  the 
wage-worker  himself  must  apply.  In  doing  this  he  must  en- 
counter the  opposition  of  employers,  who  naturally  object  to 
being  disturbed,  and  who  resent  interference  with  their  time- 
honored  prerogatives.     It  does  not  follow  from  this   situation 


92  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

that  the  unions  are  arrayed  against  capital  and  that  they  are 
naturally  hostile  to  employers  as  such;  it  is  simply  a  condition 
that  must  be  met.  There  is  really  no  way  of  knowing  what  an 
employer  can  afiford  to  pay  or  of  deciding  what  an  equitable 
division  of  the  joint  product  should  be,  except  by  means  of  this 
forcing  process  and  the  balance  reached  as  a  result  of  such 
contention.  The  friction  is  largely  overcome  where  employers 
appreciate  this  function  of  the  union  and  are  prepared  to  treat 
with  it,  not  as  something  to  be  afraid  of,  but  as  a  necessary 
factor  in  industrial  progress.  It  would  not  handicap  the  em- 
ployer disposed  to  be  just  to  have  a  minimum  rate  of  wages 
upheld,  for  it  would  improve  his  position  as  a  competitor. 

Such  a  recognition  of  the  working  class  struggle  is  involved 
in  the  union  shop,  for  it  expresses  the  willingness  of  the  em- 
ployer to  treat  with  his  men  on  terms  of  equality  and  to  allow 
them  representation.  The  great  consideration  is  to  permit  work- 
men to  have  a  voice  in  the  shop — to  have  some  control  over 
the  conditions  of  employment.  The  recognition  of  that  demo- 
cratic principle  means  more  to  the  worker  than  reading  rooms, 
baths,  and  pension  funds,  which,  under  the  guise  of  benevolence, 
undermine  the  independence  of  the  employee.  A  manufacturer 
noted  for  that  kind  of  philanthropy  told  me  that  it  makes* 
unions  unnecessary. 

We  now  approach  the  most  sensitive  part  of  the  question,  the 
status  of  the  non-unionists.  In  order  to  maintain  their  position 
in  the  open  shop,  the  union  men  are  obliged  either  to  exclude  the 
non-unionist  or  to  induce  him  to  join  with  them.  A  partly 
organized  shop,  and  that  is  called  "free"  or  "open,"  is  unten- 
able, for  either  the  non-union  men  will  in  time  have  to  join 
the  union  or  the  union  men  will  be  obliged  to  withdraw.  They 
are  incongruous  elements,  and  one  or  the  other  in  time  must 
give  way.  The  unionists  have  cause  to  feel  that  they  are  at  a 
disadvantage  working  side  by  side  with  the  non-members,  who' 
receive  the  favor  of  the  boss  and  prevent  concerted  action  on 
their  part.  Besides,  unless  all  employees  are  bound  by  an  agree- 
ment, the  employer  could  eventually  replace  the  union  workmen 
by  men  who  make  individual  bargains. 

Consider  the  case  of  a  shop  in  which  the  workmen,  in 
order  to  present  a  just  demand,  unanimously  organize  and  suc- 
ceed in  their  contention.  Then  suppose  they  do  not  insist  upon 
the  exclusion  of  non-union  men.     In  time  the  tmion  men  for- 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  93 

sake  the  union  or  are  superseded  by  non-union  men.  Disorgan- 
ization follows,  and  the  old  conditions  are  restored.  Under 
the  stress  of  a  common  grievance  they  again  organize  and  gain 
their  object.  Unless  permanent  organization  is  maintained  by 
the  majority's  refusing  to  work  with  delinquent  members  or 
objecting  to  the  introduction  of  non-union  men,  their  previous 
experience  would  be  repeated  indefinitely  without  making  head- 
way. The  presence  even  of  a  single  workman  acting  independ- 
ently serves  to  frustrate  the  purpose  of  all.  This  is  the  heart  of 
the  question.  Let  those  whose  sensibilities  are  offended  by  the 
harsh  methods  resorted  to  put  themselves  in  the  workman's 
place  and  tell  us  what  they  would  do. 

In  applying  ethical  standards,  existing  conditions  must  be 
sidered.  If  all  workmen  understood  their  interests  and  acted 
consistently,  the  disagreeable  features  of  labor  unions  would 
be  unnecessary.  It  is  the  same  deficiencies  common  to  humanity 
that  make  governments  coercive,  but  this  sort  of  coercion  we 
accept  habitually.  It  is  not  an  ideal  condition  where  the  pay 
of  the  artisan  is  measured  by  his  resisting  or  offensive  strength ; 
nor  is  it  so  where  Jones  is  made  to  work  for  less  than  his 
services  are  worth  because  Smith,  who  is  more  in  need  of  a  job 
and  willing  to  live  on  less,  can  be  induced  to  accept  a  lower 
wage.  The  best  situation  is  where  both  sides  are  so  strong  that 
neither  can  afford  to  ignore  either  the  claims  of  the  other  or  the 
influence  of  public  opinion.  This  is  the  condition  favorable  to 
arbitration. 

When  a  union  undertakes  to  exclude  workmen  from  mem- 
l)ership, — action  which,  in  a  state  of  thorough  organization,  is 
equivalent  to  debarring  them  from  employment  in  their  trades, 
— it  wields  a  power  which  is  public  in  character  and  which 
subjects  it  in  the  exercise  of  this  power  to  the  judgment  of  pub- 
lic opinion.  The  unions  are  therefore  called  upon  to  justify  their 
actions  in  every  case  of  exclusion  or  expulsion  from  the  union. 

Unions  are  showing  an  increasing  consciousness  of  their  re- 
sponsibility in  this  respect  by  providing  rules  of  procedure  and 
courts  of  appeal.  This  is  perfected  where  national  unions  have 
control  over  local  unions.  The  national  executive  boards  are 
directed  by  their  constitutions  to  entertain  appeals,  thus  elim- 
inating the  personal  considerations  which  actuate  local  unions. 

It  is  incumbent  upon  unions  to  act  generously  toward  of- 
fenders, so  as  to  reduce  as  far  as  possible  the  number  of  work- 


94  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

men  debarred  from  the  union.  In  fact  it  is  to  their  larger  in- 
terests to  do  so,  otherwise  the  disquaUfied  men  would  so  in- 
crease as   to  threaten  the  union's  position. 

The  mooted  question  arises  as  to  how  far  the  unionist  can 
properly  go  in  influencing  the  non-unionist.  The  right  to  per- 
suade no  one  will  deny,  although  courts  have  essayed  to  inter- 
fere with  it.  The  right  to  ostracize  or  to  refuse  to  associate 
with  draftsmen  who  are  indifferent  to  their  common  welfare  is 
questioned.  If  that  be  wrong,  then  it  is  equally  wrong  for  pro- 
fessional men  to  shun  others  of  their  calling  accused  of  "unpro- 
fessional conduct."  It  is  also  wrong  for  merchants  to  taboo 
other  tradesmen  who  disregard  the  ethics  of  their  business.  It 
would  in  fact  be  wrong  for  any  one  to  refuse  intercourse  with 
another  because  of  misconduct.  Ostracism  has  always  been  a 
potent  moral  force,  moral  because  peaceful  and  because  depend- 
ing upon  the  co-operation  of  others.  It  is  perhaps  the  strongest 
influence  in  upholding  social  standards. 

I  do  not  wish  to  be  understood  as  favoring  the  coercion  of 
the  non-unionist,  because  I  recognize  that  labor  unions  must  be 
founded  upon  the  voluntary  consent  and  good  will  of  a  majority 
if  they  are  to  endure;  but  some  forcing  is  unavoidable  in  the 
movements  of  great  numbers,  especially  in  an  aggressive  move- 
ment that  has  immediate  objects  to  attain  and  in  which  the  in- 
terests of  all  are  closely  allied.  It  cannot  be  expected  that  the 
mass,  that  is,  the  organized  part,  will  wait  for  the  consent  of 
every  individual  before  it  moves,  the  same  as  in  the  case  of  na- 
tions. Those  who  stand  in  the  way  of  the  rest  have  got  to  step 
aside  or  join  the  procession.  Even  those  who  may  disagree  with 
the  policy  of  the  majority  can  influence  its  course  by  acting  with 
it.  Where  the  majority,  however,  becomes  oppressive  and  there 
is  no  hope  of  correcting  its  policy  from  within,  it  becomes  the 
duty  of  even  the  dissenters  to  withdraw  for  the  time  being  by 
way  of  protest,  and  should  that  be  ineffective,  to  form  another 
union  in  opposition  to  it,  but  always  with  the  idea  of  eventually 
creating  unity.  The  harmony  that  now  pervades  the  labor 
movement  is  the  result  of  the  secessions  and  revolts  against  bad 
and  corrupt  management.  Such  means  have  always  been  the 
safeguard  against  tyranny  and  wrong  tendencies,  and  the  im- 
provement in  methods  of  government  is  chiefly  due  to  the  same 
means. 

The  methods  by  which  the  non-unionist  is  driven  into  the 
union    seem   arbitrary   to   those   unacquainted  with  the   circum- 


THE  CLOSED  SHOP  95 

stances,  seem  like  a  denial  of  his  personal  liberty  to  force  him 
to  join  against  his  will,  seem  a  coercing  -of  the  employer  into 
driving  an  employee  into  the  union  against  his  interests.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  however,  the  non-unionist  has  nothing  to  say  for 
himself ;  the  employer  alone  is  solicitious  about  his  independence, 
and  for  motives  easily  divined.  The  scruples  that  the  non- 
unionist  is  supposed  to  have  against  joining  the  union  evident- 
ly exist  only  in  the  mind  of  the  employer,  for  when  the  non- 
unionist  finds  his  way  into  the  union  he  becomes  as  zealous  as 
the  rest.  He  finds  that  instead  of  losing  his  liberty  he  actually 
gains  it,  and  that  he  shares  equally  in  the  benefits  of  the  im- 
proved conditions  secured  through  the  efforts  of  the  others. 
Workingmen,  knowing  what  actuates  the  non-unionist,  disregard 
the  delicate  considerations  which  arouse  the  indignation  of 
outsiders.  They  know  that  workmen  remain  aloof  from  the 
union,  not  from  conviction,  but  for  no  other  reason  than  in- 
difference and  short-sighted  selfishness.  Usually  it  is  due  to 
a  doubt  as  to  the  willingness  and  ability  of  other  workmen 
to  act  together;  and  conseqiiently  when  the  union  succeeds  in 
inducing  the  employer  to  compel  them  to  join  or  leave  the 
shop,  they  feel  as  though  a  union  able  to  accomplish  such  a 
miracle  is  strong  enough  to  benefit  them. 

Unions  concerning  the  rights  of  the  non-union  men  that  do 
not  take  into  account  his  relations  to  other  workmen  and  the 
conditions  which  surround  them  are  bound  to  be  erroneous,  just 
as  are  discussions  of  the  status  of  an  individual  without  regard 
to  his  relation  to  society.  A  workman  entering  a  modern 
shop  is  at  once  made  subject  to  uniform  rules  and  conditions. 
His  pay  is  determined  by  what  the  others  get;  should  he  work 
for  less  it  would  serve  to  depress  the  wages  of  the  rest.  His 
lot  is  cast  with  his  class,  and  his  paramount  duty,  therefore, 
is  to  support  their  solidarity.  The  workman  who  wants  to 
work  for  less  wages  has  lately  received  much  attention.  That 
remarkable  being  has  not  yet  been  put  in  evidence.  H  there 
be  such  a  person,  he  ought  to  be  made  the  subject  of  a  sanity 
expert,  rather  than  the  subject  of  discussion  by  political  econ- 
omists. 

The  resort  to  violence  by  workmen  is  not  to  be  tolerated, 
and  from  an  economic  standpoint  it  is  unwise.  Physical  force 
is  inconsistent  with  the  benevolent  purpose  of  the  labor  move- 
ment; and  if  successfully  employed,  would  be  emulated  by  other 
workmen  and  would  lead  them  to  rely  upon  it  rather  than  on 


96  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

the  moral  strength  of  their  cause.  A  movement  dignified  by 
exalted  aims  and  inspired  by  the  brotherhood  spirit,  if  it 
depended  upon  brute  force  as  a  means,  would  soon  degenerate 
into  a  mob.  The  provocation  to  use  force  is  intense  under  the 
trying  circumstances  of  a  strike,  the  same  as  it  is  among  ordinary 
citizens  when  their  indignation  is  aroused  through  some  out- 
rage; but  to  indulge  in  it  would  justify  the  antagonism  of 
society,  compelled,  as  it  is,  to  protect  itself  against  such  aggres- 
sions. The  supreme  aim  of  organized  society  is  to  make  per- 
sonal vengeance  unnecessary,  to  diminish  the  necessity  for 
physical  force,  to  make  reason  and  justice  govern  human  af- 
fairs. It  is  true  that  the  labor  movement,  owing  to  its  newness, 
is  still  to  an  extent  held  in  distrust  by  society;  its  welfare, 
however,  would  be  best  served  by  winning  public  favor,  and 
to  gain  that  favor  it  must  merit  it.  This  view  I  am  sure  is  sup- 
ported by  every  labor  official;  it  is  incumbent  upon  them  not 
only  to  disavow  any  sympathy  with  lawlessness,  but  also  to 
convince  the  membership  that  they  do  not  secretly  approve  of 
it  even  where  it  may  appear  to  serve-  their  ends. 

I  do  not  intend  to  make  a  lawyer's  plea  for  the  union,  to 
emphasize  its  good  points  and  hide  its  weaknesses.  The  labor 
movement  possesses  such  elements  of  strength  that  its  de- 
ficiencies can  be  candidly  admitted  in  order  that  they  may  be 
more  readily  corrected.  To  seek  to  destroy  unions  because  of 
their  defects  would  be  like  attempting  to  abolish  government 
because  of  its  abuses.  The  unions  with  all  their  faults  represent 
a  forward  stride  to  the  human  race.  They  cultivate  a  spirit 
of  self-reliance  and  mutual  assistance  which  ought  to  more 
than  compensate  for  their  faults.  Their  shortcomings  are  the 
shortcomings  of  the  average  individual  of  which  they  are  com- 
posed. While  some  of  their  actions  cannot  be  defended  on 
economic  grounds,  it  may  be  said  that  workmen  only  share  in 
the  general  ignorance  of  economic  principles,  and  that  they  are 
merely  enabled  through  organization  to  give  effect  to  the  opposi- 
tion to  improved  methods.  The  hardships  caused  by  inventions 
fall  more  heavily  upon  them  and  they  naturally  regard  them 
from  the  standpoint  of  their  temporary  and  immediate  interests 
rather  than  the  point  of  view  of  society. 

To  prevent  excesses  of  the  union  is  a  grave  question.  It  is  to 
the  likelihood  of  abuse  of  the  power  so  suddenly  placed  in  the 
laborers'  hands  that  the  distrust  of  unions  is  due.  Those  who 
suddenly  acquire  power  are  unable  to  measure  its  limitations  or 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  97 

to  realize  the  responsibilities  that  go  with  it.  This  much,  how- 
ever, can  be  said  to  allay  this  apprehension :  As  the  unions  be- 
come stronger  and  gain  in  experience,  they  lend  to  conserva- 
tism, and  their  rashness  is  but  the  evidence  of  crudeness.  The 
hard  and  stern  conditions  confronting  them  can  be  relied  upon 
to  keep  them  within  bounds.  The  employers,  when  hard  pressed, 
can  seek  refuge  in  combination,  and  they  have  shown  them- 
selves to  be  as  capable  in  that  respect,  at  least,  as  the  workmen. 
The  problems  which  they  raise  are  but  the  problems  of  democ- 
racy. Where  people  try  to  assert  and  govern  themselves  they 
become  troublesome.  The  simplest  condition  is  despotism,  polit- 
ical or  industrial;  it  consists  merely  in  allowing  someone  else  to 
decide  what  is  best  for  yourself.  Democracy  is  the  stormy  sea 
over  which  the  bark  of  humanity  must  sail.  Better  progress 
under  such  difficulties  than  the  dead  calm  of  subjection. 


TRADE  UNION  IDEALS ' 

The  ideals  of  trade  unions  differ.  The  ideals  of  the  so- 
called  unskilled  worker  differ  in  degree  from  the  ideals  of  the 
so-called  skilled  worker.  The  ideals  of  the  new  recruit  differ 
from  the  ideals  of  the  veteran  unionist.  Some  trade  unions 
are  but  business  corporations,  devoting  their  time  and  money 
to  the  protection  of  the  draftsmen  enrolled  in  their  union,  per- 
haps devoting  some  time  to  the  protection  of  affiliating  unions, 
that  is,  of  workmen  who  may  possibly  be  able  to  take  the 
place  of  their  more  advanced  craftsmen  in  the  event  of  an  in- 
dustrial battle.  Some  unions  remain  practically  outside  of  the 
active  labor  movement ;  the  higher  ideals  of  trade  unionism 
have  not  entered  into  the  minds  of  their  leaders;  they  do  not 
discuss  questions  of  mighty  import  save  as  they  affect  their 
own  craftsmen's  interest.  The  great  body  of  the  trade  un- 
ions, however,  are  not  merely  business  corporations  for  the 
protection  and  the  advancement  of  the  interests  of  their  mem- 
bers only;  they  are  affiliated  one  with  the  other  in  all  matters 
pertaining  to  the  best  interests  of  all  wage-workers,  in  the  un- 
ion and  out  of  the  union. 

In  the  earlier  days  of  trade  unionism,  handicapped  as  it 
was  by  legislative   enactments   and  arbitrary   and   unjust  treat- 

1  George  E.  McNeil.  American  Economic  Association.  Proceedings. 
4:215-22.      1903- 


98  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

ment,  exacted  in  the  name  of  law  yet  really  in  defiance  of  law 
and  justice,  there  was  but  an  ideal  of  improved  conditions. 
The  child  of  the  mill,  of  whom  Mrs.  Browning  sang  in  heir 
"Cry  of  the  children,"  had  hardly  a  dream  of  anything  outside 
of  the  weary  monotony  of  its  labor;  but  when  the  hours  of 
labor  were  reduced  and  childhood  in  a  slight  measure  relieved 
of  the  crushing  pressure  of  drudgery,  then  needed  rest  led  to 
the  ideal  of  leisure,  of  opportunity;  and  as  the  movement  of 
the  unions  gained  strength  in  finance  and  in  membership,  the 
ideal  of  larger  wealth,  with  its  opportunities  of  greater  com- 
fort in  the  home,  took  possession,  and  so  during  the  century 
past  higher  ideals  dawned  in  the  minds  of  the  leaders  and  of 
the  led.  The  most  beastly  habits  and  customs  of  the  barbar- 
ism of  long  hours  and  low  pay  gave  way  to  more  civilized 
habits  and  customs  when  the  shorter  workday  arrived.  The 
great  co-operative  establishments  of  England  really  owe  their 
rise  and  owe  their  present  magnitude  to  the  ideals  of  trade 
unions  and  of  labor  men. 

One  of  the  ideals  of  the  trade  unions  is  that  of  securing 
freedom  of  contract — a  freedom  that  cannot  be  obtained  by 
the  individual  wage-worker  unless  such  worker  has  a  monopoly 
of  a  certain  kind  of  skill  absolutely  necessary  to  his  employer. 
It  may  be  said  that  all  the  battle  of  the  unions  for  recogni- 
tion are  battles  for  the  obtaining  of  the  power  of  freedom  of 
contract.  Strange  as  it  may  seem,  the  demands  for  nearly 
every  measure  of  relief  and  remedy  made  by  the  trade  unions 
have  been  met  with  a  claim  that  such  relief  or  remedy,  by 
legislation  or  otherwise,  would  destroy  the  great  right  of  free- 
dom of  contract.  The  minds  of  many  men  have  been  confused 
upon  this  question  of  freedom  of  contract.  Many  men  be- 
lieve that  the  freedom  of  contract  between  employer  and  em- 
ployee exists,  but  trade  unionists  know  that  it  does  not  exist, 
except  where  the  trade  union  is  strong  enough  to  maintain  it. 

It  is  well  understood  that  a  contract  supposes  two  parties, 
and  that  whatever  tends  to  put  one  of  these  parties  under  the 
power  of  the  other  destroys  the  freedom  of  the  contract.  '  As 
I  have  said  in  another  place  and  at  another  time,  under  the 
wage  system  no  congregated  form  of  labor  is  conducted  on 
the  theory  of  freedom  of  contract.  At  a  hearing  before  a 
legislative  body  the  treasurer  of  a  large  manufactory  was 
asked  if  he  ever  consulted  with  his  help  with  reference  to 
the  matter  of  wages.     His  answer    was,    "Do    you    suppose    I 


THE   CLOSED   SHOP  99 

run  my  establishment  on  the  town-meeting  plan?"  In  other 
words  he  confessed,  as  all  employers  confess  that  he  did  not 
propose  to  allow  any  freedom  of  contract  between  himself  and 
his  employees.  Employers  do  not  confess  this  in  words,  but 
they  confess  it  by  their  acts.  The  employer  claims  the  right 
to  name  the  conditions,  the  wages,  and  the  hours  of  labor  un- 
der which  the  laborer  shall  work. 

The  man  who  is  forced  to  sell  his  day's  labor  to-day  or 
starve  tomorrow  is  unable  to  exercise  any  freedom  of  contract. 
The  system  under  which  the  employer  can  wait  to  buy  labor 
until  starvation  compels  the  laborer  to  sell  at  the  price  fixied 
by  the  employer  is  tyrannical.  The  delivery  of  one's  property 
to  a  highwayman  at  the  point  of  a  pistol  does  not  imply  free- 
dom of  contract.  It  must  be  remembered  that  the  present 
industrial  system  rests  upon  the  power  of  the  class  of  em- 
ployers or  capitalists  to  compel  the  laborer  to  work  at  such 
price  and  under  such  conditions  as  the  employer  or  capitalist 
may  dictate.  There  can  be  no  freedom  of  contract  under  such 
conditions,  and  where  there  is  no  freedom  of  contract  there 
is  slavery.  As  the  employer  or  capitalist  is  not  dependent  up- 
on any  one  individual  wage  laborer,  excepting  perhaps  in  some 
very  rare  instances,  the  laborer  has  but  one  recourse  if  he 
wishes  to  obtain  something  of  his  liberty,  and  that  recourse 
is  his  association  with  other  laborers  in  such  numbers  as  to  be 
able  to  compel  the  employer  or  the  capitalist  to  stop  produc- 
tion. 

The  opportunity  for  the  nearest  approach  to  freedom  of 
contract  is  when  a  powerful  labor  organization  has  attained 
a  membership  covering  practically  all  the  craftsmen ;  that  is, 
when  an  employer  cannot  employ  help  or  such  help  or  such 
quantity  of  help  as  he  requires  unless  such  help  are  members 
of  a  union.  In  such  a  case  the  employer  himself  or  his  rep- 
resentative and  the  representative  of  the  employees  meet  on 
measurably  equal  terms — provided  always  that  the  trade  union 
organization  is  strong  enough  to  enable  the  members  to  re- 
main from  work  for  such  a  length  of  time  as  will  so  diminish 
the  capital  invested  in  the  enterprise  as  to  compel  a  conference 
or  to  cause  bankruptcy. 

The  charge  that  there  is  great  danger  to  pubHc  welfare 
from  the  trade  unions  becoming  monopolies  is  of  the  same 
character  as  the  charge  that  there  is  great  danger  to  private 
property  in  the  establishment  of  a  democratic  form  of  govern- 


loo  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

ment.  It  is  true  that  people  possessing  the  right  of  the  elec- 
tive franchise  may  exercise  that  right  by  taking  possession  of 
private  property;  but  no  true  American  feels  that  his  Hberty  of 
life,  limb,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness  or  of  his  other  prop- 
erty is  really  endangered  under  a  republican  form  of  govern- 
ment, because  in  the  event  of  the  democracy's  taking  posses- 
sion of  private  property  it  could  not  be  for  private  benefit  and 
must,  therefore,  be  for  the  public  benefit,  and  under  such  con- 
ditions fair  compensation  would  be  given  for  the  property 
taken.  In  the  past  certain  kinds  of  property  have  been  taken 
possession  of  in  our  states,  almost  noiselessly  and  certainly 
harmlessly,  so  that  to-day  the  percentage  of  public  property 
has  been   largely  increased. 

The  trade  unions  claim  that  the  v^age-laborers  through 
their  unions  shall  fix  the  price  and  the  conditions  under  which 
the  laborers  will  sell  their  time,  endurance,  and  skill;  and  it  is 
simply  ridiculous  on  the  part  of  any  one  to  claim  that  the 
wage-workers  ought  not  to  have  this  right,  and  having  this 
right  it  is  safe  to  say  that  they  ought  to  be  able  to  exercise 
it.  The  laborer  is  the  merchant  of  his  own  time,  and  his  labor 
is  practically  the  only  commodity  in  the  market  upon  which 
the  price  is  fixed  by  the  buyer  instead  of  by  the  seller.  There 
is  absolutely  no  tyranny  in  the  trade  union  theory  that  the 
sellers  of  labor  have  the  same  right  to  sell  their  commodity 
that    sellers    of    other    commodities    have. 

"The  fathers  declared  that  all  men  are  born  free  and  equal ; 
born  possessed  of  certain  inalienable  rights,  among  which  are 
the  right  to  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness.  The 
right  to  life,  liberty  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness  under 
governmental  law,  is  forfeited  by  the  performance  of  certain 
acts  contrary  to  public  safety  and  the  common  weal.  The 
right  to  life  may  not  be  forfeited  in  certain  other  instances 
by  law,  but  the  life  and  the  liberty  and  the  happiness  of  great 
multitudes  of  men  are  forfeited  by  no  act  of  their  own;  and 
this  loss  of  human  and  property  right  in  life,  liberty,  and  the 
pursuit  of  happiness  may  not  be  due  to  pestilence,  war,  or 
famine,  but  it  may  be  due  to  the  political,  religious,  industrial, 
or  social  systems  extant.  In  some  times  and  in  some  countries 
a  man  may  lose  his  life  or  his  liberty  by  the  expression  of  an 
opinion  that  may  be  a  common  expression  of  a  general  opinion 
in  other  countries  or  other  times.  In  such  an  instance  the 
act  of  the  government  in  taking  a  life  or  in  depriving  a  man 


THE   CLOSED'  ^HoP    '  "     ^  '  -  "^  '•  ^'  '•  m 

of  liberty  would  be  termed  tyrannical.  A  man  may  lose  his 
life  and  is  sure  to  lose  his  happiness  and  a  measure  of  his  lib- 
erty because  of  his  inability  to  obtain  employment  at  such 
remuneration  and  under  such  conditions  as  will  tend  to  his 
continued  happiness.  If  the  lack  of  such  employment  is  due 
to  an  industrial  or  social  system,  then  such  system  can  be 
properly  termed   tyrannical. 

The  advanced  trade  unionist  beheves  that  the  humblest 
wage-worker  has  property  rights  as  well  as  human  rights,  and 
that  it  is  impossible  to  separate  the  laborer's  human  rights, 
from  his  property  rights.  The  so-called  political  economist 
has  been  blind  and  still  is  blind  to  the  laborer's  side  of  the 
question,  that  is,  to  the  laborer's  property  rights ;  and  the  con- 
fusion in  the  minds  of  the  so-called  educators  is  largely  due 
to  the  false  and  foolish  theories  that  make  up  what  is  called 
the  science  of  political  economy,  many  of  the  propositions  and 
assumptions  of  which  are  shown  to  be  false.  When  we  begin 
to  recognize  and  acknowledge  the  laborer's  property  rights  we 
shall  have  taken  a  considerable  step  out  of  the  existing  chaos 
into  an  orderly  and  scientific  arrangement  of  data.  The  trade 
unions  are  in  advance,  in  fact  are  the  teachers  of  the  schools; 
and  great  as  is  the  cost  of  the  battle  between  employers  and 
laborers,  it  is  an  economic  expenditure  compared  to  the  waste 
that  has  resulted  and  will  result  if  we  continue  to  follow  the 
blind  leaders  of  the  blind.  The  property  rights  of  the  laborer 
must  secure  ampler  protection  than  is  now  afforded  if  we 
wish  to  maintain  our  present  civilization. 

The  great  governing  law  of  wages  rests  upon  the  habits  of 
thought,  and  feeling,  upon  the  customs  and  manners  of  the 
masses.  Where  the  level  of  thought  is  purely  physical  or 
animal,  groveling  with  the  swine  it  feeds,  occupied  in  discus- 
sing the  fighting  merits  of  game-cocks  or  men,  and  where  the 
custom  exists  of  working  all  the  hours,  possibly  occupying  the 
hours  of  holidays  and  other  periods  of  rest  in  filth  and  drunk- 
enness, in  that  locality  or  condition  wages  will  be  paid  to  the 
level  that  will  enable  the  laborers  to  enjoy  themselves  in  their 
existing  low  condition.  To  disturb  this  class  of  men  from 
their  sottish  contentment  by  an  agitation  for  more  wages  or 
less  hours  is  to  lift  them  up  in  the  level  of  their  manhood  to 
thoughts  of  better  things  and  to  an  organized  demand  for  the 
same. 

The  instinct  of  the    people    is    sometimes    wiser    than    the 


i<j2  selected  articles 

philosophy  of  the  schools.  The  wage-workers,  unionists  and 
non-unionists,  have  an  instinct  that  they  are  deprived  of  cer- 
tain property  rights  by  force  of  law  and  that  this  deprivation 
of  the  exercise  of  this  right  is  in  violation  of  moral  law.  Even 
where  trade  unions  have  not  existed  and  industrial  battles 
have  occurred  it  is  held  to  be  an  immoral  act  for  a  man  to 
take  the  place  of  any  one  on  strike.  By  some  one  it  has  been 
termed  the  thirteenth  commandment,  "Thou  shalt  not  take  an- 
other man's  job."  The  great  body  of  non-unionists  as  a  rule 
live  up  to  this  moral  law.  Out  of  this  instinct  or  belief  is 
fast  growing  the  additional  belief  that  the  wage-worker  has  an 
equity  right,  a  property  right  in  his  product  outside  and  above 
that  for  which  he  has  received  wages. 

It  is  an  ideal  of  some  trade  unions  that  the  capitalist  and 
the  employee  should  be  joint  partners  in  production,  and  that 
the  participation  in  the  results  of  the  joint  partnership  should 
be  equitable  to  both  parties.  The  trade  unions  recognize  that 
under  the  present  industrial  system  the  person  who  furnishes 
the  tools,  that  is,  the  plant  or  whatever  is  necessary  for  pro- 
duction, should  receive  some  compensation  for  such  use,  and 
that  when  all  necessary  reserve  funds  have  been  created  to 
take  care  of  the  depreciation  and  contingencies,  and  the  em- 
ployer or  employing  capitalist  shall  have  been  paid  a  fair  sum 
for  whatever  services  he  renders  in  the  joint  production,  then 
the  employee  should  be  an  equitable  sharer  in  the  balance. 


UNION  OR  NON-UNION  SHOP,  WHICH  P^ 

The  union  shop  is  democracy  in  industry.  The  right  of 
employes  to  bargain  collectively,  to  have  a  voice  in  working 
conditions,  is  recognized. 

In  the  non-union  shop  this  democracy  is  unknown.  Pater- 
nalism and  autocracy  are  the  rule.  The  employer  is  absolute. 
He  is  the  sole  judge  of  working  conditions.  He  sets  hours 
and  wages  and  tells  his  employes  they  may  accept  same  or 
quit  their  employment.  If  the  worker  quits,  and  suffering  to 
his  wife  and  children  result,  the  employer  calls  this  "freedom  of 
contract." 

This    employer   dislikes    the    terms   "non-union"    shop,    so    he 

1  Frank  Morrison,  Secretary  American  Federation  of  Labor.  New 
Majority.     s:io.     January   22,    igsi. 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  103 

refers  to  his  plant  as  "open"  shop.  The  term  is  misleading  and  is 
intended  to  deceive.  The  inconsistency  of  the  so-called  "open" 
shop  employer  is  shown  when  he  says  he  makes  no  distinction 
between  union  and  non-union  employes  and  then  fills  his  plant 
with  spies  to  report  any  union  employe  who  has  been  discovered 
discussing  the  value  of  trade  unionism. 

These  employers  know  that  in  this  age  of  organization  it  is 
unwise  to  announce  that  they  are  opposed  to  trade  unions.  So 
they  employ  just  enough  trade  unionists  to  serve  as  an  alibi 
against  the  charge  that  they  oppose  trade  unions,  but  they  do 
not  employ  enough  trade  unionists  to  dispute  the  employer's 
absolute  and  complete  control  over  working  conditions,  li 
these  organized  workers  advocate  trade  unionism  they  are  dis- 
charged. 

The  unions  hold  that  organized  labor  sets  the  standards  for 
workers  and  that  it  is  just  as  logical  that  all  workers  assist  in 
maintaining  these  standards  as  it  is  for  all  citizens  to  pay  taxes. 

The  so-called  "open"  shop  employer  would  not  approve  a 
citizen  shirking  his  duties  as  a  taxpayer,  but  does  favor  his 
employees  shirking  their  duties  to  their  fellows.  The  reason  for 
the  latter  position  is  apparent.  The  employer  profits  by  this 
shirking,  which  permits  him  to  set  wages,  hours  and  working 
conditions.  But  more  than  this  he  retains  complete  power 
over  his  employees. 

Employees  Pay  for  "Welfare" 

He  may  arrange  welfare  societies  in  his  plant.  He  may 
have  a  system  for  those  employes  who  serve  him  faithfully,  and 
who  just  as  faithfully  abstain  from  trade  union  membership. 
He  may  conduct  a  system  of  athletics  and  recreation  for  his 
employees  and  provide  them  with  model  work  rooms,  but  above 
and  beyond  all  these  there  is  no  element  of  democracy  in  his 
plant.  He  denies  his  employes  collective  bargaining,  and  there- 
fore controls  the  lives  of  these  workers.  He  sets  their  living 
standards.  He  orders.  His  workers  accept.  They  are  denied 
an  equality  enjoyed  by  union  shop  employes. 

Non-union  shop  employes  accept  the  welfare  work  of  an 
employer,  but  they  do  it  at  the  price  of  their  liberty.  Their 
grievances  are  subject  to  the  good  will  of  the  employer.  He 
may  remedy  them,  but  he  does  it  because  he  is  a  "good  boss" 
and  not  because  his  employes  stand  up  as  men  and  demand 
justice. 


104  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

If  the  grievance  is  not  adjusted  the  employee  must  accept 
onerous  conditions  or  quit.  If  an  individual  quits,  that  is  nothing 
to  the  employer. 

Just  Like  Slave-Holders 

Fundamentally  there  is  no  difference  between  the  non-union 
shop  employer  and  the  slave  owner  before  the  civil  war.  In  both 
cases  the  employer  and  the  slave  owner  are  absolute.  Both 
provided  amusement  for  their  workers.  The  slave  owner  prided 
himself  on  being  "a  good  master."  The  non-union  employer 
says,  "I  protect  my  employes," 

In  neither  case  was  the  slave  or  is  the  employe  permitted 
to  protect  himself. 

In  the  union  shop  this  autocratic  rule  does  not  exist.  Here, 
the  employes  have  a  collective  voice  in  working  conditions.  The 
employer  concedes  that  democracy  in  industry  is  possible  and 
that  welfare  work  is  not  a  substitute  for  democracy.  The 
union  employer  is  not  interested  in  welfare  work  or  in  "pro- 
tecting" his  employes.  He  treats  them  as  Americans  who  can 
furnish  their  own  amusements  and  recreations.  Company 
doctors,  company  nurses,  etc.,  are  unknown  among  union  em- 
ployers. 

The  non-union  shop  employer  ignores  these  fundamentals. 
He  would  conceal  his  slave  theory — his  mastership  over  his 
employees  and  their  working  conditions — by  talking  about  the 
so-called  "open"  shop,  the  glory  of  independence,  and  "the 
tyranny  of  the  unions,"  while  he  himself  denies  independence 
and  proves  that  tyranny  can  exist,  though  he  attempts  to  con- 
ceal it  with  a  velvet  glove. 


ORGANIZED  LABOR  CANNOT  SUBMIT  TO  THE 
"OPEN-SHOP"  MENACE  ^ 

The  following  timely  appeal  is  published  in  a  leaflet  by  the 
Central  Labor  Union  of  Philadelphia,  which  requests  labor 
organizations  to  reprint  it  and  distribute  it  as  widely  as  possible : 

"The  open  shop  is  the  open  road  to  disaster  for  organized 
workers.  It  is  the  open  road  to  mastery  by  the  employing  class. 
That  is  why  intelligent  workingmen  oppose  it;  that  is  why  em- 
ploying masters  favor  it. 

1  National  Labor  Journal.     15:2.    January  28,    1921.- 


THE   CLOSED   SHOP  105 

"For  workingmen  it  is  the  entering  wedge  by  which  organi- 
zation is  slowly  strangled,  wages  are  reduced,  hours  lengthened, 
and  the  rank  and  file  are  reduced  to  servile  submission  to 
heartless  bosses. 

"Nowhere  else  in  the  modern  world  do  the  employing 
masters  oppose  the  unions  as  they  do  here.  A  tremendous 
drive  is  being  made  by  the  employing  class  all  over  the  country 
to  crush  unionism.  Millions  of  dollars  have  been  contributed 
for  the  purpose.  Quietly  gathering  their  forces,  getting  the 
aid  of  chambers  of  commerce  and  civic  organizations,  the 
masters  of  industry  seek  to  establish  unchallenged  domination 
through  the  'open  shop.' 

Closed  Shop  in  Europe 

"In  England  the  struggle  has  been  long  fought  to  a  con- 
clusion. The  same  is  true  of  Canada.  In  both  countries  the 
right  of  organization  of  shop  and  factory,  mine  and  mill,  is 
conceded.  It  has  been  eliminated  from  the  realm  of  contro- 
versy. But  the  workingmen  of  'free  America'  are  forced  to 
fight  for  an  elemental  right  that  is  taken  for  granted  in  coun- 
tries where  monarchy  itself  still  survives. 

"The  'open  shop'  is  related  to  'Americanism'  by  our  enemies. 
No  more  class  hypocrisy  has  ever  been  displayed.  The  slave 
pens  of  the  Gary  steel  trust  are  typical  examples  of  open-shop 
Americanism.  Although  the  eight-hour  day  has  been  long  ago 
conceded  in  the  steel  industry  of  England,  Germany  and  other 
countries,  the  United  States  is  the  only  country  in  the  world 
where  workingmen  work  twelve  hours  per  day  and  seven  days 
a  week.     This  is  open-shop  'Americanism.' 

"Organization  is  forbidden.  He  who  talks  it,  is  discharged. 
He  who  attempts  to  organize  is  slugged.  Spies  of  the  companies 
swarm  in  the  mills.  They  slink  in  the  streets,  in  the  pool- 
rooms, in  the  movies,  at  public  gatherings,  everywhere  that 
workingmen  gather  the  company  spy  is  present.  Suspicion, 
fear,  distrust  and  hatred  brood  over  the  workers.  The  friend 
working  by  their  side  may  be  a  spy.  Life  is  filled  with  this 
brooding  menace,  that  dogs  their  heels.  This  is  open-shop 
'Americanism.' 

Garyism   and   Welfare   Work 

"  'Welfare  work'  of  the  open-shop  masters  of  Garyism  is 
substituted    for   unionism,    together   with   the    'company   union.' 


io6  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

Homes  are  purchased  from  the  company  by  the  workers  on  easy 
payments.  When  a  real  strike  comes  this  'welfare  work'  is  seen 
to  be  a  scourge  to  whip  the  slaves  back  to  their  pens.  The 
workers  are  evicted  from  their  homes,  except  those  who  consent 
to  betray  their  brothers  by  going  to  work.  It  places  a  premium 
on    treachery.      This    is    open-shop    'Americanism.' 

"The  'company  union'  is  a  plaything  of  the  employing  masters. 
The  workers  'organize'  like  sheep  under  the  eyes  of  the  bosses. 
Officials  are  chosen  to  preside  over  this  abortion  of  unionism. 
Any  genuine  grievances  cannot  be  discussed  under  the  eyes  of 
the  agents  of  the  masters.  He  who  attempts  it  soon  finds  that 
he  is  discharged  for  some  trivial  reason.  The  workers  are 
cowed.  They  submit  to  injustice  and  merciless  robbery.  This 
is  open-shop  'Americanism.' 

"Brothers  in  the  army  of  labor :  Shall  we  submit  to  what 
our  brothers  in  the  monarchies  of  Europe  will  not  tolerate?  To 
do  so  would  be  to  brand  ourselves  as  craven  cowards  and  merit 
the  contempt  of  our  children.  It  would  be  to  play  false  to  the 
martyrs  of  the  labor  movement  in  this  country.  Our  fathers, 
beginning  in  the  '20s  of  the  last  century,  formed  their  first 
enduring  unions.  Some  went  down  in  ruins,  but  their  sons 
rebuilt  them  again  and  again.  Through  struggles,  disappoint- 
ments, sacrifices  and  defeats,  they  struggled  on  through  the 
'40s,  the  '50s,  and  the  '60s. 

"Then  came  the  Civil  War,  and  the  unions  all  but  disap- 
peared. With  peace  a  new  generation  took  up  the  old  task  and 
through  the  nineteenth  century  repeated  this  struggle.  Now 
we  are  in  the  twentieth  century  and  at  the  end  of  a  war  to 
'make  the  world  safe  for  democracy.'  Safe  for  any  country  but 
the  United  States;  safe  for  the  employing  masters  of  jndustry. 

Is  This  Americanism  f 

"What  a  travesty!  We  are  called  to  the  fields  of  Flanders 
while  these  employing  upstarts  remained  at  home  and  accum- 
ulated enormous  gains.  Some  of  our  brothers  lie  in  graves 
across  the  Atlantic.  Many  have  returned  and  they,  are  now  told 
by  the  employing  upstarts  that  organization  of  labor  is  "un- 
American !'  Would  that  our  brothers  now  lying  in  the  fields 
of  France,  would  witness  this  spectacle  in  the  country  for 
which  they  gave  their  lives!  Yet  the  masters  tell  us  this  is 
open-shop   'Americanism.' 

"Shall   we   submit?     Shall   we   permit  this   stark  impudence, 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  107 

this  attempt  to  capitalize  patriotism  for  dirty  material  ends,  to 
go  without  rebuke?  Shall  we  permit  the  masters  of  industry  to 
identify  Americanism  with  their  bank  accounts? 

"No,  a  thousand  times,  no !  Without  organization  of  labor 
in  industry,  workingmen  are  helpless  to  contend  with  the  mighty 
power  of  organized  capital.  The  employing  class  demand  and 
secure  organization  for  themselves  and  would  deny  it  to  us. 
This  is  impertinence  and  greed  compounded.  The  workers  will 
org;anize  for  betterment  and  fraternize  for  mutual  protection. 
There  can  be  no  democracy  in  the  workshop  that  rests  on  the 
autocratic  will  of  the  owners.    It  is  industrial  slavery. 

The  open  shop  means  the  supremacy  of  the  employing 
masters.  The  union  shop  means  the  democracy  of  labor  meeting 
with  the  bosses  on  equal  terms  and  capable  of  warding  off 
injustice  and  tyranny.  The  open  shop  is  bogus  patriotism.  This 
union  shop  means  a  humanist  spirit  in  industry.  The  open  shop 
means  the  spy,  the  sneak,  low  wages,  long  hours,  suspicion, 
treachery  and  vast  profits  for  the  employing  masters.  The 
union  shop  means  fraternity,  better  wages,  shorter  hours;  trust 
in  each  other  and  a  collective  voice  in  determining  conditions 
of   work. 

"Take  no  account  of  what  a  mercenary  daily  press  may  say. 
Most  of  the  daily  papers  will  be  against  us.  Rely  on  your- 
selves. Your  vast  numbers  give  you  power.  By  dividing  you 
they  weaken  you.  The  struggle  is  on,  and  each  of  us  should  be 
glad  to  participate  in  the  best  cause  that  has  come  to  us  in  a 
generation. 

"Away  with  the  open  shop,  with  its  fake  'Americanism !' 
Onward  to  the  union  shop,  with  its  fraternity,  its  democracy, 
its  collective  help,  its  unity  of  ideals  and  service  to  each  other !" 


THE  OPEN  SHOPi 

The  hypocrisy  of  the  "open  shop"  crusade  being  conducted 
by  associations  of  emplo3^ers  is  made  manifest  by  the  almost 
unanimous  endorsement  of  all  large  employers  whether  their 
shops  are  open  or  closed.  Had  the  campaign  been  confined  to 
those  employers  who  are  restricted  in  the  employment  of  labor 
to  trade-unionists  there  might  have  been  a  semblance  of  sin- 
cerity in  their  effort  to  abolish  the  closed   shop.     The  employ- 

*  National    Labor  Journal.     15:4.     January   28,    1921. 


io8  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

ers  were  quick  to  discover  their  error,  however,  and  are  now 
masquerading  under  the  name,  "American  plan." 

The  real  motive  back  of  the  "open  shop"  movement,  oi 
"American  plan,"  is  the  disruption  of  trade  unionism,  and  the 
defeat  of  collective  bargaining.  It  is  hypocritical  for  the  em- 
ployers to  say  that  they  are  not  opposed  to  trade-unions,  but 
demand  merely  the  right  to  deal  individually  with  their  employes 
instead  of  with  their  chosen  representatives.  What  good  would 
it  do  a  man  to  belong  to  a  trade  union  if  his  union  were  denied 
the  right  to  represent  him?  When  collective  bargaining  is 
denied,  the  unions  might  as  well  close  up  shop. 

The  organized  employes  are  not  the  only  ones  affected  by  the 
open  shop  crusade.  The  welfare  of  every  wage-earner  is  at 
stake  in  this  fight.  The  trade  union  is  the  only  bulwark  against 
greedy  and  avaricious  capital ;  the  trade  unions  established  in 
America  what  is  today  considered  a  high  standard  of  wages 
and  working  conditions,  and  did  it  in  spite  of  and  over  the  oppos- 
ition of  organized  capital.  This  standard  can  only  be  main- 
tained and   improved   by  the  workers  collectively. 

The  one  and  only  object  of  the  "open  shoppers"  is  to  defeat 
collective  bargaining,  thus  having  a  free  hand  in  establishing 
wages  and  conditions  of  employment  to  suit  themselves.  The 
principle  of  collective  bargaining  has  been  established  after  a 
long  struggle  against  the  forces  of  profit  and  greed,  and  will  not 
be   surrendered. 


COLLECTIVE  BARGAINING ' 

Collective  bargaining  means  that  the  organized  employes  ol 
a  trade  or  industry,  through  representatives  of  their  own  choos- 
ing, shall  deal  with  the  employer  or  employers  in  the  making 
of  wage  scales  and  working  conditions.  Collective  bargaining 
is  the  only  practical  proposal  for  adjusting  relations  between 
the  management  and  the  workers  in  a  business  way,  assuring  a 
fair  deal  to  both  sides. 

Each  individual  joins  with  his  fellow  workman  to  ask  col- 
lectively for  better  wages  and  conditions  of  employment  that 
he  could  not  secure  through  his  own  efforts  alone.  An  em- 
ployer of,  say,  five  hundred  men,  has  an  unfair  advantage  if  he 
deals  with  them  as  individuals.     To  make  the  employes  equal  in 

1  Pamphlet   by    Samuel   Gompers,    1920. 


THE  CLOSED   SHOP  109 

power  and  influence  to  the  employer  they  must  be  organized, 
and  through  regularly  chosen  representatives,  meet  the  employer 
on  a  common  footing.  By  conceding  points  on  each  side  an 
agreement  can  be  finally  reached  that  will  maintain  better  rela- 
tions and  therefore  greater  industrial  peace. 

In  no  other  walk  of  life  does  the  idea  exist  that  a  man  must 
arbitrarily  accept  any  offer  that  may  be  made  by  another.  There 
are  two  sides  always  to  an  agreement.  Each  side  ought  to  have 
equal  chances  to  propose  and  insist  upon  what  it  considers  a  fair 
agreement. 

Industrial  peace  can  be  secured  only  by  the  righting  of 
wrongs  suffered  by  the  workers.  If  a  body  of  workers  has  a 
grievance  it  can  be  adjusted  only  through  conferences  with  the 
employer  or  his  representative.  As  all  can  not  meet  the  em- 
ployer at  one  time  it  is  necessary  for  them  to  select  represent- 
atives to  carry  out  their  will  as  expressed  collectively.  This 
right  is  identical  with  that  always  held  by  the  employer  and 
never  challenged  by  the  law  or  the  public. 

In  all  spheres  of  activity  in  which  employers,  business  men, 
public  men  and  citizens  generally  have  any  matter  in  which  their 
interests  are  involved,  they  not  only  avail  themselves  of  appear- 
ing by  their  own  representatives  and  counsel  of  their  own  choos- 
ing, whether  in  litigation  before  the  courts  or  in  business  rela- 
tions, but  they  are  guaranteed  even  by  the  constitution  of  our 
country  the  right  to  be  heard  by  counsel.  The  claim  of  the 
workers  in  this  respect  is  founded  upon  the  same  fundamental 
beneficial  principle — the  right  of  the  workers  to  be  represented 
by  counsel  (not  lawyers),  representative  of  their  own  number 
and   of  their   own   choice. 

For  instance,  in  great  industries  such  as  the  iron  and  steel 
industry,  the  employes  have  nothing  to  say  as  to  their  wages  and 
working  conditions.  They  work  twelve  hours  a  day  and  every 
two  weeks,  in  changing  from  day  to  night  work,  they  are  com- 
pelled to  remain  at  their  tasks  for  twenty-four  hours  straight. 
This  has  been  the  practice  since  the  industry  has  been  organized 
into  corporations.  There  have  been  much  opposition  and  grum- 
bling from  the  employes,  but  these  have  never  reached  the  heads 
of  the   corporations,   or  if  they  did,   found  no   response. 

The  employes  were  unorganized.  Collective  bargaining, 
except  for  a  short  time  years  ago  with  a  small  number  of  highly 
skilled  employes,  was  unknown.  The  great  mass  of  workers  had 
no  voice  in  what  they  should  receive.     If  a  superintendent  or 


no  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

foreman  wished  to  change  the  conditions  of  employment,  he 
could  do  so  without  question,  as  each  department  is  expected  to 
produce  a  certain  amount  in  value.  The  straw  bosses  pinched 
and  schemed  to  do  it.  The  onlj^  way  they  ever  tried  was  to 
take  something  away  from  the  employes.  They  never  considered 
that  most  efficient  production  could  be  secured  only  when 
agencies  for  assuring  justice  to  employes  and  best  management 
and  working  conditions  were  established.  It  was  this  sort  of 
industrial  servitude  that  culminated  many  times  in  great  strikes 
in  the  steel  industry.  It  brought  the  strike  of  1919.  The  head 
of  the  great  corporation  in  that  industry  refused  to  meet  repre- 
sentatives of  the  employes  even  to  hear  their  grievances.  If 
collective  bargaining  had  been  in  force  in  that  industry  the 
twelve  and  twenty-four  hour  day  would  have  disappeared  years 
ago,  and  it  would  have  been  accomplished  without  a  strike.  Now 
the  responsible  head  of  that  corporation  knows  so  little  of  what 
the  steel  workers  are  thinking  that  he  even  asserts  that  they 
want  the  twelve-hour  day. 

As  the  employes  were  employed  as  individuals  and  kept 
apart  by  racial,  creed,  national  prejudices  and  other  means,  they 
could  not  unite  to  submit  their  grievances  until  they  became 
members  of  trades  unions.  They  could  not  understand  each 
other,  nor  could  they  succeed  in  eliminating  the  causes  that  had 
formerly  kept  them  in   isolated  and  hostile   groups. 

Collective  bargaining  in  industry  does  not  imply  that  wage 
earners  shall  assume  control  of  industry,  or  responsibility  for 
financial  management.  It  proposes  that  the  employes  shall  have 
the  right  to  organize  and  to  deal  with  the  employer  through 
selected   representatives  as  to  wages  and  working  conditions. 

Among  the  matters  that  properly  come  within  the  scope  of 
collective  bargaining  are  wages,  hours  of  labor,  conditions  and 
relations  of  employment,  the  sanitary  conditions  of  the  plant, 
safety  and  comfort  regulations  and  such  other  factors  as  would 
add  to  the  health,  safety  and  comfort  of  the  employes,  resulting 
in  the  mutual  advantage  of  both  employers  and  employes.  But 
there  is  no  belief  held  in  the  trades  unions  that  its  members  shall 
control  the  plant  or  usurp  the  rights  of  the  owners. 

Collective  bargaining  takes  into  consideration  not  only 
mutually  advantageous  conditions  and  standards  of  life  and 
work,  but  also  the  human  equation,  a  consideration  too  long 
neglected. 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  in 

Application   of  Principles 

Q.      IV hat  is  collective   bargaining ? 

A.  Simply  a  business  proposition  by  which  the  organized  employes 
in  a  trade  or   industry  deal  collectively  with  their  employer  or  employers. 

Q.     How  is   this  accomplished  t 

A.  The  employes  in  their  union  appoint  a  committee  to  draw  up  new 
wage  scales  and  working  conditions.  These  are  reported  to  the  union  for 
consideration.  Then  in  regular  meeting  each  question  Is  taken  up  and  dis- 
cussed from  every  angle.  Finally  the  union  agrees  upon  a  wage-scale 
and  working  conditions  to  submit  to  the  employer.  A  committee  for 
this  purpose  is  selected,  as  the  entire  number  of  employes  can  not  meet 
in  conference  with  the  employer.  This  committee  meets  the  employer  or 
his  representative  and  discusses  the  desires  of  the  employes  collectively 
through  their  union. 

Q.     Does   this   committee  have  full  power   to   act? 

A.  No.  It  must  report  back  to  the  union  the  result  of  its  conference 
with  the  employer.  If  the  report  is  satisfactory  the  union  approves  the 
settlement  and  an  agreement  for  a  stated  period  is  signed  by  both  parties. 
If  unsatisfactory,  further  conferences  with  the  employer  or  his  repre 
sentatives   are    held  until   an   agreement  is  reached. 

Q.      What  advantage   has  such   a  joint   agreement? 

A.  It  removes  friction  that  always  exists  where  employes  have  no 
voice  in  the  making  of  their  wages  and  conditions  of  employment.  It  is 
democracy  in  industry  as  opposed  to  autocracy.  The  employes  know  what 
they  are  to  receive  for  a  certain  period  and  therefore  can  plan  ahead 
in  buying  a  home  or  making  improvements  in  their  standard  of  living. 

Q.     Does   collective   bargaining  protect   the   employes? 

A.  Yes.  Employes  can  not  be  discharged  at  the  will  of  a  "straw  boss." 
Charges  against  them  must  be  made,  and  after  a  trial,  if  they  are  found 
true,  then  •  the  offenders  can  be  discharged.  If  untrue,  they  retain  their 
positions. 

Q.      What   effect   does  this  have   on   the   "straw   bosses"? 

A.  It  makes  them  more  careful.  They  are  not  so  arbitrary  or  do 
not  seek  trouble.     It  brings   about   mutually    better   feelings   and   relations. 

Q.  Does  the  fact  that  an  employe  can  not  be  discharged  ivithout 
cause   make   him   more   independent   and   likely    to    create   friction? 

A.  No.  Men  who  are  placed  on  their  honor,  which  is  the  result 
of  collective  bargaining,  feel  they  have  an  interest  in  the  plant  and 
make  every  effort  to  carry  out  the  union  agreement.  They  are  not 
nagged,  brow-beaten  or  coerced.  They  take  an  interest  in  their  work  and 
the  result  is  a  better  output  and  a  lower  turnover  of  labor.  Their  in- 
itiative powers  are  not  curtailed  and  because  of  that  they  try  to  create 
new  methods  that  will  be  of  benefit  to  the  business.  They  are  men 
and  not  mere  machines,  and  this  results  in  better  feeling  between  em- 
ployers  and  employes. 

Q.      Can  unorganised   employes   bargain   collectively? 

A.  Not  with  a  certainty  that  they  will  be  treated  fairly.  Unor- 
ganized employes  are  subject  to  influences  that  will  hamper  their  efforts 
for   fair   bargaining. 

Q.      Why? 

A.  Being  unorganized  they  can  not  agree  collectively  to  any  proposi- 
tion that  will  benefit  them,  as  the  influences  referred  to  will  divert  them 
into  accepting  less  than  that  to   which  they  are  entitled. 

Q.      What    are    these   influences? 

A.  Men  employed  as  individuals  always  retain  the  fear  that  they  are 
to  be  discharged  or  have  their  wages  lowered  whenever  the  employer  sees 
fit  to  do  it.  They  are  not  in  a  position  to  enter  objections  to  their 
working  conditions  because  of  these  same  fears.  They  are  voiceless  in 
their  own  affairs  because  they  can  not  act  collectively.  Each  is  sus- 
picious of  the  other.  Some  feel  that  they  are  overlooked  by  the  em- 
ployer while  others  are  favorites  who  receive  all  the  best  work.  Jeal- 
ousies are  created.  Discontent  is  rife.  Therefore  when  the  unorganized 
employes    all    meet    together   to   decide    what   they   shall    ask   the  employer 


"2  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

they  become  cowardly  for  fear  some  other  employe  will  report  them 
to  the  employer.  Those  who  take  an  active  part  always  are  the  favorites 
ot  the  employer  and  they  advocate  only  those  things  to  which  the  great 
majority  of  the  employes  would  object  if  they  were  not  afraid.  The 
outcome  of  such  a  meeting  is  never  satisfactory.  Instead,  discontent 
grows  and  in  time  the  employes  form  a  real  union  and  from  that  time 
on  they  do  not  fear  to  express  their  thoughts  or  openly  object  to  the 
statements    of  those   known   as  company  men. 

Summary 

Collective  bargaining,  it  will  be  seen,  makes  for  a  better 
citizenship.  It  uplifts  those  who  while  unorganized  were  timid 
and  servile.  The  industries  accepting  collective  bargaining  are 
stabilized  and  can  face  the  future  with  certainty  instead  of 
doubt.  Raising  the  standard  of  citizenship  of  the  workers 
through  collective  bargaining  affects  the  community  in  which 
they  live.  The  standard  of  living  is  improved,  the  children  are 
benefited  through  better  chances  for  education  and  the  home  is 
made  happier  by  the  fact  that  the  head  of  the  family  is  able  ' 
to  earn  a  sufficient  wage  to  support  those  dependent  upon  him. 
This  is  democracy  in  industry. 

Autocracy  in  industry  is  where  the  employer  fixes  the  wages 
and  hours  of  employment  arbitrarily.  They  must  be  accepted 
by  the  employes  without  question.  Those  who  object  are  dis- 
charged. This  creates  a  servile  class  that  makes  for  an  inferior 
citizenship. 

The  issue,  then,  is  between  collective  bargaining  and  autoc- 
racy in  industry.  The  good  of  the  nation  demands  collective 
bargaining.     There  can  be  no  defense  for  autocracy  in  industry. 


COLLECTIVE  BARGAINING ' 

In  these  days  of  "open  shop"  propaganda  and  "hundred 
per  cent,  paytriots"  it  might  be  well  to  consider  what  they  are 
raising  all  the  hub-bub  about.  It  seems  that  the  principal  fly  in 
the  ointment  of  the  paytriots  and  the  big  employers  of  labor  is 
the  growing  strength  of  organized  labor,  therefore  let  us  look 
into  the  ways  and  the  wherefores  of  this  "menace." 

The  present  system  of  industry  is  based  on  profits. 

Profits  are  that  portion  of  the  wealth  which  labor  has 
produced  which  it  does  not  get. 

1  Editorial,  Butcher  Workman  Advocate  (Omaha,  Neb.).  January  21, 
1921. 


u$ed 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  113 

Capital  is  the  stored-iip  portion  of  the  profits  of  past  labor 
to  exploit  labor  of  the  present. 
•  Labor    is    that    element    of    society    which    when    applied    to 
natural  resources  produces  all  wealth. 

H  the  reader  will  carefully  consider  these  statements,  he  will 
find  that  they  not  far  wrong.  Taking  them  as  a  basis  for 
argument,  we  would  like  to  point  out  that  in  order  that  profits 
may  be  large,  labor's  share  of  the  wealth  it  produces  must  be 
small.  To  the  extent  that  labor  is  allowed  to  consume  the 
wealth  which  it  creates,  to  that  extent  is  the  profit  of  the 
capitalist  cut  down.  This  is  the  real  reason  for  the  alarm  of 
the  "open  shop"  crowd. 

Organized  labor  maintains  that  the  workers  should  have 
first  consideration  since  they  comprise  the  great  majority  of 
humanity  and  are  primarily  responsible  for  all  the  wealth  of  the 
world.  Organized  greed  maintains  that  since  the  workers  have 
always  been  cheated  they  should  go  on  being  cheated  without 
complaint  and  allow  the  greater  portion  of  the  wealth  which 
they  produce  to  go  into  the  hands  of  a  few  capitalists  to  be  used 
to  exploit  the  workers  of  the  next  generation. 

Until  recent  years  this  was  the  common  procedure.  Wealth 
was  piled  up  in  the  hands  of  kings  and  their  retainers,  financiers 
and  their  retainers  and  was  handed  down  from  generation  to 
generation,  the  workers  who  produced  it  often  dying  in  poverty 
and  distress. 

Through  the  struggles  of  centuries  the  working  class  of 
people  have  been  slowly  overcoming  this  situation.  Education  is 
supplanting  ignorance  and  the  worker  is  claiming  an  ever  in- 
creasing share  of  the  wealth  which  he  produces. 

The  measure  of  his  success  is  evidenced  by  the  extent  to 
which  he  is  organized.  The  extent  to  which  he  is  organized  is 
evidenced  by  the  manner  in  which  he  lives.  In  Timbuctoo, 
China,  Korea  and  uncivilized  countries,  the  workers  are  wearing 
breech-cloths,  eating  snails  and  rice, — and  they  are  unorganized. 

In  America,  where  the  inhabitants  are  semi-civilized  and 
half-organized,  the  workers  are  wearing  shoddy  clothing  and 
eating  sow  bosom.  As  they  progress  in  civilization  and  organiza  • 
lion  they  wear  better  clothing  and  eat  the  choicer  quality  of 
food,  — pork   loins   and   sometimes  even  porterhouse   steak. 

They  accomplish  this  revolutionary  feat  by  uniting  with  each 
other  and  organizing  their  labor  power  and  selling  it  collectively 


114  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

to  the  capitalists  who  control  the  machinery,  tools  of  production 
and  natural  resources.  To  the  extent  that  they  are  civilized  (or 
organized  if  you  would  rather  have  it  that  way)  to  that  extent 
is  the  bargain  in  their  favor,  and  the  greater  is  their  share  of 
the  food,  clothing  and  shelter  which  they  have  produced. 

The  capitalist  is  becoming  alarmed  at  the  growth  of  civiUza- 
tion,  and  therefore  is  setting  up  a  cry  to  have  the  savages  or 
uncivilized  (unorganized)  workers  reap  the  benefits  of  civiliza- 
tion without  performing  any  of  the  duties  of  civilization.  Organ- 
ized labor  has  offered  and  is  still  offering  the  benefits  of  civihza- 
tion  to  the  unorganized  savages.  They  can  have  it  for  the 
taking.  But  organized  labor  further  maintains  that  if  they  are 
unwilling  to  accept  the  boon  when  it  is  offered  to  them  that  they 
should  not  be  allowed  to  endanger  it  by  their  presence  in  indus- 
try. If  they  do  not  wish  to  keep  step  with  progress  they  should 
be  shipped  to  Timbuctoo,  China  or  Korea. 

Collective  bargaining  is  the  only  method  whereby  the  com- 
mon people  can  right  their  wrongs  and  improve  their  conditions 
short  of  revolution.  Organized  labor  does  not  want  revolution. 
The  greatest  obstacle  to  collective  bargaining  is  the  uncivilized, 
unorganized  heathen  who  accepts  all  of  the  advantages  of  organ- 
ization  without  giving  a  thought  or  a  dime  to  help  it. 


BRIEF  EXCERPTS 

The  open  shop  campaign  does  not  accord  to  union  members 
the  right  of  organization.  In  practice,  the  open  shop  means  the 
non-union  shop. — William  L.  Chenery. — Survey.  45:428.  Decem- 
ber i8,  1920. 

In  the  historic  sense  the  closed  union  shop  is  a  reaction 
against  the  control  of  the  means  of  production  by  the  employer. 
It  is  not,  as  often  thought,  a  reaction  against  capitalism.  It  is 
therefore  not  socialistic,  for  it  accepts  the  economic  order  of 
the  private  ownership  and  direction  of  property.  But  it  is  an 
attempt  to  encroach  upon  the  profits  and  control  of  industry 
through  the  power  to  bargain  with  the  owners  of  industrial 
capital. — Ernest  F.  Lloyd.  The  closed  union  shop  versus  the  open 
shop :   their  social  and  economic  value  compared,     p.  6. 

There  are  two  kinds  of  open  shop,  one  that  is  open  to  union 
and  non-union  workers,  with  the  two  classes  on  an  equal  foot- 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  115 

ing,  and  in  which  the  management  deals  with  the  workers 
through  local  committees,  without  reference  to  their  national 
organizations. 

The  other  kind  is  the  shop  closed  to  union  workers  alto- 
gether. Unfortunately  some  employers'  leaders  mean  the  latter 
kind  when  they  talk  about  an  "open  shop."  What  they  mean  is 
one  closed  to  union  men  and  open  only  to  non-union  men. — 
Syracuse   Post-Standard.     January   13,   ig2i. 

The  union  shop  rests  on  the  freedom  of  contract,  or  indi- 
vidual liberty.  There  is  no  greater  element  of  "monopoly"  in  it 
than  in  any  other  contract  for  services  or  materials.  If  you 
give  work  to  A,  you  can  not  give  the  same  work  to  B.  Has 
B  any  grievance?  Would  it  not  be  ridiculous  for  him  to  object 
to  the  contract  in  the  name  of  equality?  .  .  .There  is  no  blow 
at  ideahsm  in  the  union  shop.  There  would  be  if  the  unions 
were  close  corporations,  monopolies,  aristocracies.  But  are  they 
not  working  day  and  night  to  extend  their  influence  to  convert 
new  men,  to  organize  all  their  fellows? — Samuel  Gompcrs, 
American  Federationist,   October,   1904. 

Discharges  for  joining  the  union  were  so  common  in  the 
months  before  the  strike  that  the  union  organizers  did  not 
even  keep  records  of  the  cases.  Cases  were  too  common  to 
need  proving  and  the  organizer  could  only  say  to  the  victim, 
"After  we're   recognized   you'll   get  your  job   back." 

Pencil  marks  on  a  typewritten  slip  of  paper  in  the  Mones- 
sen  "labor  file"  illustrated  the  principle  of  discharge.  The 
paper  was  the  report  of  a  spy,  plainly  inside  the  union,  and 
contained  a  list  of  names  which  were  referred  to  in  a  letter, 
also  in  the  file,  from  a  labor  detective  2^gtncy.— Commission  of 
Inquiry,  Interchurch  World  Movement.  Report  on  the  Steel 
Strike  of  1919.  p.  212. 

No  other  country  in  the  world  has  such  large  widespread, 
well-financed,  strike-breaking  corporations,  making  money  out 
of  "labor  trouble"  as  America.  Their  existence  is  an  integral 
part  of  the  industrial  corporations'  poHcy  of  "not  dealing  with 
labor  unions."  The  steel  strike  was  harvest-home  for  them. 
Outside  the  plants  and  inside,  outside  the  strikers  and  inside  the 
labor  unions,  their  "operatives"  spied,  secretly  denounced,  engi- 
neered raids  and  arrests,  and  incited  to  riot.  The  concerns' 
managers  spoke  the  same  arguments  as  Mr.  Gary  in  justification 


ii6  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

of  their  activities.  The  companies  concealed  but  were  not 
ashamed  of  hiring  "operatives";  it  was  a  customary  inevitable 
part  of  the  anti-union  alternative. — Commission  of  Inquiry. 
Interchurch  World  Movement.  Report  on  the  Steel  Strike  of 
1919.    p.  229. 

The  so-called  open  shop  influences  wages  and  the  standard 
of  life  to  the  downward  course,  for  it  is  based  upon  the  syco- 
phancy of  the  most  docile,  and  the  most  immediate  needs  of 
those  in  direst  distress,  of  the  poorest  situated  among  the  work- 
men. 

Agreements  or  joint  bargains  of  organized  labor  with  em- 
ployers depend  for  their  success  upon  the  good  will  of  the  union 
and  the  employers  toward  each  other.  Neither  should  be  sub- 
ject to  the  irresponsibility  or  lack  of  intelligence  of  the  non- 
unionist,  or  his  failure  to  act  in  concert  with,  and  bear  the  equal 
responsibility  of,  the  unionist.  Hence,  the  so-called  open  shop 
makes  agreements  and  joint  bargains  with  employers  impractica- 
ble, if  not  impossible.  The  union  can  not  be  responsible  for 
non-unionists  whose  conduct  often  renders  the  terms  of  the 
agreement  ineffective  and  nugatory. 

Inasmuch  as  the  most  conspicuous  antagonists  of  organized 
labor  are  sponsors  for  what  they  term  the  open  shop,  upon 
the  pretense  of  the  liberty  of  the  individual,  the  thought  forces 
itself  upon  us  to  ask: 

"When,  in  history,  have  the  opponents  of  any  movement  for 
the  uplifting  of  the  masses  constituted  themselves  the  advocates 
and  defenders  of  the  liberty  and  freedom  of  the  people?" — 
Samuel  Gompers.  From  annual  report  to  A.  F.  of  L.  conven- 
tion, Boston,  Mass.,  November,  1903. 

Organized  labor's  insistence  upon  and  work  for,  not  the 
"closed  shop,"  as  our  opponents  term  it,  but  the  union  shop,  in 
agreement  with  employers,  mutually  entered  into  for  the  advan- 
tage of  both  and  the  maintenance  of  industrial  peace  with  equity 
and  justice  for  both,  is  to  the  economic,  social  and  moral  ad- 
vancement of  all  our  people. 

The  union  shop,  in  agreement  with  employers,  is  the  applica- 
tion of  the  principle  that  those  who  enjoy  the  benefits  and  ad- 
vantages resulting  from  an  agreement  shall  also  equally  bear  the 
moral   and  financial   responsibilities  involved. 

In   my   reports   to  previous  conventions   and   in  editorials  in 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  117 

our  official  magazine,  I  have  often  dealt  with  this  subject 
definitely  and  fully.  Our  Federation  has  approached  this  ques- 
tion intelligently  and  manfully.  There  should  be  no  recession 
from  our  logical  and  just  position.  It  should  be  reiterated  and 
emphasized.  At  the  same  time  we  should  direct  our  effort  still 
further  and  better  to  organize  our  fellow  wage-earners ;  to  instill 
in  them  the  principles  of  duty  well  done — the  principles  of  fra- 
ternity, solidarity,  and  justice — to  make  our  organizations  of 
still  greater  benefit  to  them  than  is  even  now  the  case,  and  that 
by  reason  of  greater  advantages  the  unions  will  be  more  deserv- 
ing of  their  good-will,  respect,  and  confidence.  Thus  will  the 
still  lingering  opposition  to  the  union  shop  be  eliminated  from 
the  field  of  industrial  controversy. — Samuel  Gontpers.  From 
annual  report  to  A.  F.  of  L.  convention,  Pittsburg,  Pa.,  Novem- 
ber, 1905. 

Labor  (Washington)  denounces  the  attempt  of  "the  greedy, 
cruel,  profiteers"  to  bring  back  the  "glories  of  the  open  shop," 
and  declares  that  the  kind  of  "union"  they  want  has  never  been 
better  described  than  by  Peter  Finley  Dunne's  famous  Mr. 
Dooley : 

"'What's  all  this  that's  in  the  papers  about  the  open  shop?' 
asked  Mr.  Hennessey. 

"'Why,  don't  ye  know?'  said  Mr.  Dooley.  'Really,  I'm 
surprized  at  yer  ignorance,  Hinnissey.  What  is  th*  open  shop? 
Sure,  'tis  where  they  kape  the  doors  open  to  accommodate  th' 
constant  stream  av'  min  comin  in  t'  take  jobs  cheaper  than  th' 
min  what  has  th'  jobs.  'Tis  like  this,  Hinnissey:  Suppose 
wan  av  these  freeborn  citizens  is  workin'  in  an  open  shop  f'r 
th'  princely  wages  av  wan  large  iron  dollar  a  day  av  tin  hour. 
Along  comes  anither  son-av-gun  and  he  sez  t'  th'  boss,  "Oi 
think  Oi  could  handle  th'  job  nicely  f'r  ninety  cints."  "Sure," 
sez  th'  boss,  an  th'  wan  dollar  man  gets  out  into  th'  crool 
woruld  t'  exercise  hiz  inalienable  roights  as  a  freeborn  American 
citizen  an'  scab  on  some  other  poor  devil.  An'  so  it  goes  on, 
Hinnissey.  An'  who  gits  th'  benefit?  Thrue,  it  saves  th'  boss 
money,  but  he  don't  care  no  more  f'r  money  thin  he  does  f'r 
his  right  eye. 

"  'It's  all  principle  wid  him.  He  hates  t'see  men  robbed  av 
their  independence.  They  must  have  their  indipindence,  regard 
less  av  anything  else.' 


ii8  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

"  'But,'  said  Mr.  Hennessey,  'these  open-shop  min  ye  menshun 
say  they  are  f'r  unions  iv  properly  conducted.' 

"  'Shure,'  said  Mr.  Dooley,  'iv  properly  conducted.  An' 
there  we  are:  An'  how  would  they  have  thim  conducted?  No 
strikes,  no  rules,  no  contracts,  no  scales,  hardly  iny  wages,  an' 
dam  few  mimbers.' " — Literary  Digest,  dy.i^.  November  27, 
1920. 

It  is  necessary  to  keep  in  mind  the  distinction  between  Mr. 
Gary's  arguments  based  on  possible  evils, — the  "closed  shop" 
argument, — and  his  arguments  based  on  the  Corporation's  ac- 
tual practice.  The  difference  was  illustrated  in  this  statement 
by  Mr.  Gary  to  members  of  the  Commission  of  Inquiry  on 
December  5:  "I  am  just  as  much  opposed  to  one  big  union 
of  all  the  steel  companies  of  the  country  as  to  one  big  union 
of  all  the  steel  workmen.  Both  would  be  bad  for  the  nation." 
Mr.  Gary  was  not  brought  to  a  discussion  based  on  the  actual 
fact :  whether  one  big  union  of  half  the  steel  companies  of 
the  country,  with  no  recognized  union  among  that  half's  steel 
workmen,  was  "bad  for  the  nation."  An  analysis  of  fact, 
such  as  attempted  in  this  report,  must  deal  with  the  badness 
or  justice  of  what  actually  exists, — with  the  alternative  en- 
forced  by   the   Corporation's  practice. 

In  sum,  then,  Mr.  Gary  could  tell  the  Senate  Committee 
in  the  same  breath  that  "of  course  workmen  had  a  right  to 
belong  to  unions"  but  that  "it  is  my  poUcy  and  the  policies  of 
the  Corporation  not  to  deal  with  union  labor  leaders  at  any 
time."  The  Corporation  never  proposed  any  plan  between  the 
horns  of  this  dilemma.  The  dilemma  was  actually  resolved 
by  the  Corporation's  practice.  What  the  Corporation  actually 
did,  and  does,  is  dealt  with  here. 

The  Commission's  data  show  that  the  practice  of  the  anti- 
unionism  alternative  by  the  Corporation  and  by  a  large  num- 
ber  of   independents   entailed   in    1919 — 

1.  Discharging  workmen  for  unionism,  just  as  the  twelve 
men  were  discharged  at  Wellsville  in  1901  "for  forming  a 
lodge" ;  also  the  eviction  of  workmen  from  company 
houses   and    similar   coercions. 

2.  Blacklisting   strikers. 

3.  Systematic    espionage    through    "under-cover   men." 

4.  Hiring  strike-breaking  spies  from  "labor  detective  agen- 
cies."—Cowmuxion  of  Inquiry.  Interchurch  World  Move- 
ment.    Report  of  the  Steel  Strike  of  1919.     P-  208-9. 


NEGATIVE  DISCUSSION 

THE  CLOSED  OR  OPEN  SHOP— WHICH?' 

In  eighteen  hundred  eighty-nine  an  engineer  on  a  fast 
passenger-train,  on  a  railroad  that  need  not  here  be  adver- 
tised, became  violently  insane.  The  time  on  his  run  had 
been  cut  down  to  fifty  miles  an  hour.  It  was  very  rapid 
running  at  that  time,  and  told  severely  on  the  man's  nerves. 
Suddenly,  while  at  the  throttle,  reason  gave  way,  and  the 
engineer  started  to  make  a  record  run.  He  imagined  there 
was  another  fast  train  just  behind;  his  life  was  at  stake, 
and  safety  for  himself  and  his  train  demanded  that  he  should 
make  a  hundred  miles  an  hour. 

He  had  nearly  attained  his  pace  and  was  flying  past  a 
station  where  he  should  have  stopped  for  orders  when  the 
fireman,  realizing  the  situation,  laid  the  madman  low  with 
a  link-pin,  and  the  train  was  slowed  down  just  in  time  to 
escape  a  wreck. 

There  is  a  natural  law,  well  recognized  and  defined  by 
men  who  think,  called  the  law  of  diminishing  returns,  some- 
times referred  to  as  the  law  of  pivotal  points. 

A  man  starts  in  to  take  systematic  exercise,  and  he  finds 
his  strength  increases.  He  takes  more  exercise  and  keeps 
on  until  he  gets  "stale" — that  is,  becomes  sore  and  lame. 
He  has  passed  the  pivotal  point  and  is  getting  a  diminish- 
ing return.  In  running  a  railroad  engine,  a  certain  amount 
of  coal  is  required  to  pull  a  train  of  given  weight  a  mile, 
say,  at  the  rate  of  fifty  miles  an  hour.  You  double  the 
amount  of  your  coal,  and  simple  folks  might  say  you  double 
your  speed,  but  railroadmen  know  better.  The  double 
amount  of  coal  will  give  you  only  about  sixty  miles  in- 
stead of  fifty  with  a  heavy  train.  Increase  your  coal  and 
from  this  on  you  get  a  diminishing  return.  If  you  insist 
on  eighty  miles  an  hour  you  get  your  speed  at  a  terrific 
cost  and  a  terrible  risk. 

^Pamphlet   by    Elbert    Hubbard.     Printed    by    The    Roycroftcrs,    1916. 


120  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

Another  case:  Your  body  requires  a  certain  amount  of 
food:  the  body  is  an  engine;  food  is  fuel;  life  is  combustion. 
Better  the  quality  and  the  quantity  of  your  food,  and  up 
to  a  certain  point  you  increase  your  strength.  Go  on  in- 
creasing it,  and  you  reach  a  point  where  you  get  diminish- 
ing returns.  Go  on  increasing  your  food  and  you  get 
death.  Loan  money  at  five  per  cent,  and  your  investment 
is  reasonably  secure  and  safe.  Loan  money  at  ten  per  cent, 
and  you  do  not  double  the  returns;  on  the  contrary,  you 
have  taken  on  so  .much  risk!  Loan  money  at  twenty  per 
cent,  and  you  probably  lose  it ;  for  the  man  who  borrows 
at  twenty  per  cent,  does  not  intend  to  pay  if  he  can  help  it. 

The  law  of  diminishing  returns  was  what  Oliver  Wen- 
dell Holmes  had  in  mind  when  he  said:  "Because  I  like  a 
pinch  of  salt  in  my  soup  is  no  reason  I  wish  to  be  immersed 
in  brine." 

Churches,  preachers  and  religious  denominations  are  good 
things  in  their  time  and  place,  and  up  to  a  certain  point. 
Whether  for  you  the  church  has  passed  the  pivotal  point 
is  for  you,  yourself,  to  decide.  But  remember  this,  because 
a  thing  is  good  up  to  a  certain  point,  or  has  been  good,  is 
no  reason  why  it  should  be  perpetuated.  The  law  if  di- 
minishing returns  is  the  natural  refutation  of  the  popular 
fallacy,  that  because  a  thing  is  good  you  can  not  get  too 
much  of  it. 

Labor  unions  well  illustrate  the  law  of  diminishing  re- 
turns. 
V  Labor  unions  have  increased  wages,  shortened  hours, 
/introduced  government  factory  inspection,  have  partly 
\done  away  with  child-labor,  and  done  many  other  useful, 
Excellent  and  beautiful  things.  But  when  labor  unions  go 
beyond  the  pivotal  point  and  attempt  to  dictate  the  amount 
of  the  output:  forbidding  any  man  to  earn  more  than  so 
much;  decide  on  the  proportion  of  apprentices  to  workmen, 
that  is,  who  shall  advance  and  who  not;  declare  what  work 
shall  be  done  in  schools  or  in  prisons,  and  what  not;  tear 
out  work  that  has  been  done  by  non-union  men  and  re- 
quire that  it  shall  be  done  over  by  union  men;  insist  that 
you  must  join  a  union,  or  else  be  deprived  of  the  right  to 
work — then  the  union  has  passed  the  pivotal  point,  and  has 
ceased    to    give    an    equitable    return.      When    your    children 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  121 

do  not  go  to  school  for  fear  of  the  cry  of  "scab";  when  your 
wife  dare  not  hang  out  the  washing  in  the  back  yard  for 
fear  of  the  cry  of  "scab";  when  you  hesitate  to  go  to  your 
work,  knowing  you  may  be  carried  home  on.  a  shutter;  when 
brickbats  take  the  place  of  reason,  and  the  walking  dele- 
gate says,  "Carry  a  union  card  or  take  out  an  accident 
policy" — the;:  things  have  gone  so  far  that  in  self-protection 
the  union  must  be  temporarily  laid  law  with  a  link-pin. 

The  people  of  America  can  not  afford  to  let  any  com- 
bination of  men  become  an  engine  for  the  destruction  of 
liberty,  be  it  labor  unions,  Molly  Maguires,  Ku  Klux,  or 
church. 

There  are  a  million  and  a  half  men  in  America  paying 
dues  in  labor  unions.  There  are  eight  thousand  paid  walk- 
ing delegates  or  business  agents,  who  look  to  the  laborers 
for  support. 

A  million  dollars  a  year  is  paid  to  organizers,  the  money 
being  paid  by  the  laborers. 

Here  we  get  an  institution  that  supports  a  large  num- 
ber of  men  who  do  not  work;  who  can  call  a  strike  or  de- 
clare it  off;  who  can  prey  on  both  employee  and  employer 
at  will.  It  is  like  a  religious  institution  grown  great,  that 
lives  and  thrives  on  the  fears  of  its   constituents. 

Local  unions  meet  weekly  or  daily.  The  men  are  called 
together  in  the  "chapel"  to  receive  orders.  Conference  and 
consultation  are  out  of  the  question — unions  are  run  by  the 
men  who  get  paid  for  running  them.  And  the  talking  men 
in  any  union  are,  almost  without  exception,  men  who  hope 
to  rise  through  loyalty  to  the  union  and  not  by  helping 
along  their  employer.  Did  you  ever  hear  of  a  union  where 
the  men  were  called  together  to  discuss  methods  and  means 
to  better  the  business  that  supplied  them  with  work?  Well, 
not   exactly! 

Members  of  a  union  hope  to  rise  by  helping  along  the 
union.  They  want  more  pay,  shorter  hours,  and  give  their 
time  to  stating  grievances  that  grow  by  telling.  They  wish 
to  become  walking  delegates,  organizers  orofificers  in  the 
union.  Men  who  are  loyal  to  the  firm;  who  hame  ambitions 
about  furthering  the  business;  who  expect  to  become  super- 
intendents, foremen,  partners  and  officers  in  the  company, 
keep  out  of  the  unions,  because  they  are  not  wanted  there. 


122  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

John  Mitchell  was  right:  "Once  a  laborer,  always  a  laborer," 
if  you  are  a  union  man  and  work  in  a  closed  shop.  The 
closed  shop  writes  the  life  sentence  of  every  man  in  it,  and 
shuts  the  man  off  from  the  assistance  and  friendship  of  the 
employer. 

Labor  union  organizers  constantly  fan  the  fallacy  that 
employers  are  the  enemies  of  the  men  to  whom  they  supply 
work;  that  capital  is  at  war  with  labor,  and  that  success  lies 
in    secretly   combining  against   capital. 

The  organizers  and  helpers  are  really  paid  attorneys, 
and  their  business  is  to  dirtort  the  truth  for  their  own  in- 
terests.     They    are    preachers    upholding    their    denomination. 

Labor  union  meetingi>  are  all  ex-parte — only  one  side  is 
represented.  The  employer,  his  superintendents  and  fore- 
men are   carefully  excluded. 

With  the  open  shop  the  labor  union  is  a  good  thing — 
it  brings  men  together,  and  that  which  cements  friendships 
and  makes  for  brotherhood  is  well. 

But  the  closed  shop  creates  a  sharp  line  of  demarcation 
between  labor  and  capital,  and  between  union  and  non- 
union men.  It  says,  "Once  a  laborer,  always  a  laborer." 
It  stops  the  law  of  evolution;  throttles  ambition,  stifles  en- 
deavor; and  tends  to  make  tramps  of  steady  and  honest 
workingmen.  Workingmen  who  own  homes  can  not  afford 
to  join  unions,  and  men  who  are  in  unions  can  not  afford 
to  invest  in  homes.  Because  the  strike  is  not  a  matter  of 
choice;  they  have  to  throw  up  their  jobs  at  the  crook  of 
the  finger  of  a  man  who,  perhaps,  has  no  home,  no  wife,  no 
children,  no  aged  parents.  Men  over  forty  who  go  on  a 
strike  do  not  get  back.  Strikes  are  ordered  by  young  men 
who  have  no  property  interests;  no  family  ties  and  nothing 
to  lose.  For  old  men  who  can  not  earn  the  scale  there  is 
no  work.  Men  with  children  to  feed  and  clothe  had  better 
not  forfeit  the  friendship  of  their  employer  by  disregarding 
or  opposing  his  interests. 

When  the  unions  have  power  to  dictate  a  closed  shop, 
they  have  reached  a  point  where  they  say,  "You  must  join 
our  union  or  starve." 

This  is  tyranny!  It  is  un-American!  It  breathes  the 
spirit  of  the  inquisition  and  conjures  up  in  one's  mind  the 
picture  of  Granada's  blood-slippfery  streets. 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  123 

Unionism,  like  political  parties  and  other  forms  of  or- 
ganization, is  preyed  upon  by  men  who  do  not  consider 
themselves  a  part  of  the  United  States  and  are  evidently 
bent  upon  forcing  the  workers  into  mental  servitude  and 
a  state  of  hypocrisy. 

When  unionism  gets  to  a  point  where  it  dictates  to  the 
employer  whom  he  shall  hire,  and  decides  who  shall  have 
the  right  to  labor  and  who  not,  then  unionism  has  become 
un-American — a  menace  too  great  to  overlook.  Unlimited 
power  is  always  dangerous  when  centered  in  the  hands  of 
a  few  men. 

The  American  Federation  of  Labor  is  controlled  by 
eleven  men.  These  men  are  not  workingmen.  They  may 
have  been  once,  but  now  they  live  on  the  labor  of  others. 
They  undertake  to  manipulate  and  regulate  the  lives  of 
those  who  toil,  and  take  toll  for  their  service.  The  result 
is  that,  being  human,  they  are  drunk — power-crazed  by  suc- 
cess— and  are  attempting  to  run  an  engine  fitted  for  fifty 
miles  an  hour  at  a  speed  of  one  hundred.  It  is  the  working 
out  of  the  law  of  diminishing  returns.  From  being  a 
benefit,  the  labor  union  has  become  a  burden.  The  few 
men  who  control  the  Labor-Unions  have  created  a  phantom 
in  their  minds  called  "Capital,"  which  they  think  is  after 
them  and  is  going  to  shunt  them  into  the  ditch.  They  have 
frightened  the  laborers  so  long  with  ghost-stories  that  they 
have  come  to  believe  their  own  fabrications.  What  shall 
be  done  about  this  insane  clutch  for  power?  Must  we  for- 
ever endure  the  rule  of  the  demagogue?  Who  is  right  in 
this  question  of  "Labor  versus  Capital"  ?  I'll  tell  you :  both 
sides  are  right  and  both  sides  are  wrong.  The  capitahsts 
of  this  country,  for  the  most  part,  were  once  workingmen, 
and  many  arc  workingmen  now.  And  any  laborer  who  owns 
a  home  and  has  a  savings-bank  account  is  a  capitalist. 

The  open  shop  means  liberty.  The  closed  shop  means 
slavery.  Moreover,  it  means  faction,  feud,  strife,  violence. 
The  open  shop  will  make  employers  considerate,  and 
labor  unions  cautious.  Employers  are  not  base  and  grasp- 
ing, any  more  than  men  who  work  for  wages  are  truthful, 
trusting  and  intent  on  giving  honest  service.  Men  are  men,' 
and   safety   lies   in    the   balance   of  power. 

Henry  George,  one   of  the  sanest  men   that  America  or 


124  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

any  other  country  has  ever  produced,  a  workingman,  and 
for  many  years  a  member  o£  a  union,  and  the  labor  union 
candidate  for  mayor  of  New  York  in  eighteen  hundred 
eighty-six,  says,  m  his  Open  Letter  to  Pope  Leo  XIII : 

While  within  narrow  lines  trades-unionism,  promotes  the  idea  of  the 
mutuality  of  interests,  and  often  helps  to  raise  courage  and  further 
political  education,  and  while  it  has  enabled  limited  bodies  of  working- 
men  to  improve  somewhat  their  condition,  and  gain,  as  it  were,  breathing 
space,  yet  it  takes  no  note  of  the  general  causes  that  determine  the  con- 
ditions of  labor,  and  strives  for  the  elevation  of  only  a  small  part  of 
the  great  body  by  means  that  can  not  help  the  rest.  Aiming  at  the  re- 
striction of  competition — the  limitation  of  the  right  to  labor — its  methods 
are  like  those  of  the  army,  which  even  in  a  righteous  cause  are  sub- 
versive of  liberty  and  liable  to  abuse,  while  its  weapon,  the  strike,  is 
destructive  iti  its  nature,  both  to  combatants  and  non-combatants.  To 
apply  the  principle  of  trades-unions  to  all  industry,  as  some  dream  of 
doing,  yvoujd  be  to  enthrall  men  in  a  caste  system.  Union  methods  are 
superficial  in  proposing  forcibly  to  restrain  overwork  while  utterly  ignor 
ing  its  cause,  and  the  sting  of  poverty  that  forces  human  beings  to  it. 
Anil  the  nielliods  by  which  these  restraints  must  be  enforced,  multiply 
officials,  i-iiterrfere  with  personal  liberty,  tend  to  corruption,  and  are  liable 
to   abuse. 

Labor-associations  can  do  nothing  to  raise  wages  but  by  force.  It 
may  l)e  force  applied  passively,  or  force  applied  actively,  or  force  held 
in  reserve,  but  it  must  be  force.  They  must  coerce  or  liold  the  power 
to  coerce  employers;  they  must  coerce  those  among  their  own  members 
disposed  to  strangle;  they  must  do  their  best  to  get  into  their  hands  the 
whole  field  of  labor  they  seek  to  occupy,  and  to  force  other  workingmen 
either  to  join  them  or  to  starve.  Those  who  tell  you  of  trade  unions 
bent  on  raising  wages  by  moral  suasion  alone  are  like  people  who  tell 
you    of    tigers   that   live   on    oranges. 

Labor-associations  of  the  nature  of  trade-guilds  or  unions  are  neces 
barily  selfish;  by  the  law  of  their  being  they  must  fight,  regardless  oi 
who  is  hurt;  they  ignore  and  must  ignore  the  teaching  of  Christ,  thai 
we  should  do  unto  others  as  we  would  have  them  do  to  us,  which  a  true 
political  economy  shows  is  the  only  way  to  the  full  emancipation  of  the 
masses.  They  must  do  their  best  to  starve  workmen  who  do  not  join 
them;  they  must  by  all  means  in  their  power  force  back  the  "scab,"  as 
a  soldier  in  battle  must  shoot  down  his  mother's  son  if  in  the  opposing 
ranks:  a  fellow  creature  seeking  work — a  fellow  creature,  in  all  probabil- 
ity, more  pressed  and  starved  than  those  who  bitterly  denounce  him,  and 
often  with  the  hungry,  pleading  faces  of  wife  and  child  behind  him.  And 
in  so  far  as  they  succeed,  what  is  it  that  trades-guilds  and  unions  do  but 
to  impose  more  restriction  on  natural  rights;  to  creat  "trusts"  in  labor 
to  add  to  privileged  classes  other  somewhat  privileged  classes;  to  press; 
the   weaker   to  the   wall? 

I  speak  without  prejudice  against  trades-unions,  of  which  for  years. 
I  was  an  active  member.  I  state  the  simple,  undeniable  truth  when  I 
say  their  principle  is  selfish  and  incapable  of  large  and  permanent  bene- 
fits, and  their  methods  violate  natural  rights  and  work  hardship  and  in- 
justice. Intelligent  trades-unionists  know  it,  and  the  less  intelligent 
vaguely  feel   it. 

So  let  this  fact  be  slated:  The  union  does  not  stand  for 
labor — it  only  stands  for  such  a  portion  of  it  as  consents 
to  be  owned  and  dictated  to  by  itself.  For  the  multitude 
of  young  men  and  young  women  who  wish  to  gain  an  educa- 
tion through  the  skilled  use  of  hands,  it  cares  nothing.  It 
knows  nothing  about  educating  the  brain  by  use  of  the  hand, 


THE  CLOSED   SHOP  125 

The  "pay  envelope"  is  all  it  knows  or  cares  about.  Also,  it 
cares  nothing  for  production  or  the  net  result  of  labor.  All 
it  thinks  of  is  more  wages  and  shorter  hours. 

The  despotism  of  unionism,  if  it  could  have  its  way, 
would  reach  past  human  belief.  It  seeks  to  paralyze  human 
freedom  and  stop  progress.  The  building  of  railroads  and 
the  growth  of  cities  is  nothing  to  it.  The  pursuit  of  an- 
other's happiness  is  its  chief  concern.  It  seeks  to  chain  my 
pen,  and  say  whom  I  shall  speak  well  of,  and  whom  not. 
It  tries  to  name  my  friends,  and  if  it  could  separate  me  from 
those  I  respect  and  admire,  it  would  make  their  names 
anathema.  It  steps  into  my  household  and  tells  me  how 
my  boy  shall  be  educated  and  how  not.  It  examines  my 
magazines  and  warns  me  to  buy  only  of  those  advertisers 
who  patronize  magazines  bearing  the  "label." 

And  then  when  I  protest,  it  says,  "Oh,  we  do  not  want 
to  hurt  anybody — if  you  employ  only  union  labor  and  use 
the  label,  nothing  will  happen  to  you."  Isn't  this  dis- 
unionism.  Isn't  it  despotism?  And  all  despotism  is  bad; 
but  the  worst  is  that  which  works  with  the  machinery  of. 
freedom.  The  man  with  the  big  stick,  who  flashes  a  dark 
lantern  in  your  face,  and  assure  you  that  if  you  give  him 
your  watch,  no  harm  shall  happen  to  you,  is  not  a  robber. 
Oh,  certainly  not! 

The  endeavor  of  unionism  is  to  make  the  job  last,  not 
to  get  it  done.  It  assumes  that  the  supply  of  work  is  lim- 
ited and,  if  there  are  too  many  apprentices,  the  workingman 
will  soon  be  on  half-time. 

Any  man  with  this  buzzing  bee  in  his  bonnet  is  already 
a  failure.  Superior  men  see  no  end  to  work,  and  all  great 
men  make  work  for  thousands.  They  set  armies  to  work 
and  build  cities  where  before  were  only  prairie-dog  towns. 

The  safety  of  this  country  demands  that  we  shall  resist 
coercion  and  intimidation  whether  offered  by  a  church  trust 
or  a  labor  trust.  The  unions  have,  as  we  have  said,  done 
much  good  in  the  past — to  them  we  owe  factory-inspection, 
child-labor  laws  and  the  shorter  working-day.  But  be- 
cause a  thing  is  good  in  small  doses  is  no  proof  that  we  can 
stand  an  unlimited  quantity  of  it. 

Commercial  excommunication  now  is  no  worse  than 
church    excommunication.     When   the    church   cuts    vou    off. 


126  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

you  can  go  to  God  direct.  You  simply  eliminate  the  middle- 
man. When  organized  labor  leaders  seek  to  starve  you  out, 
you  make  your  appeal  to  the  people— and  wax  fat.  Who 
represents  the  folks  that  actually  work  in  this  country,  any- 
way?    On  your  life,  it  is  not  the  walking  delegate! 

When  the  labor  leader  reaches  out  his  long  pole  from 
Washington,  New  York  or  Boston  and  endeavors  to  lam- 
baste a  man  in  Battle  Creek,  Indianapolis  or  St.  Louis,  he 
only  wakes  the  party  up  and  soon  has  a  fight  on  hand. 
That  a  laborer  shall  not  sell  his  labor  where  and  when  he 
desires;  that  an  employer  shall  employ  only  certain  people; 
that  my  boy  shall  not  be  educated;  that  an  advertiser  shall 
not  patronize  certain  periodicals — all  this  is  shockingly  Rus- 
sian and  overwhelmingly  Irish. 

We  long  ago  decided  not  to  be  ruled  by  a  person  in  Eng- 
land, or  a  man  in  Italy.  The  Anglo-Saxon  is  a  transplanted 
Teuton,  with  a  dash  of  the  hardy  Norse  in  his  fiber  that 
makes  slavery  for  him  out  of  the  question.  In  every  land 
upon  which  he  has  placed  his  foot,  he  has  found  either  a 
throne  or   a  grave. 

When  these  Norsemen  with  their  yellow  hair  flying  in  the 
breeze  sailed  up  the  Seine,  the  people  on  the  shore  called 
to  them  in  amazement  and  asked:  "Where  are  you  from 
and  who  are  your  masters?"  And  the  defiant  answer  rang 
out  over  the  waters,  "We  are  from  the  round  world,  and 
we  call  no  man  master!"  To  these  men  we  trace  a  pedigree. 
And  think  you  we  are  to  trade  the  freedom  for  which  we 
have  fought,  for  the  rule  of  a  business  agent  graduated 
from  a  cigar  factory?  Excuse  this  smile — I  really  can't 
help  it. 

When  that  punk  party  known  as  George  the  Three  Times 
disregarded  the  warning  of  one  Edmund  Burke,  who  said, 
"Your  Majesty,  you  must  not  forget  that  these  Colonists 
are  Englishmen — our  own  people,  and  they  can  not  be 
coerced,"  he  invited  his  fate. 

The  English  and  hired  Hessions  fought  Washington  five 
to  one,  but  Washington  was  an  Anglo-Saxon,  a  transplanted 
Teutonic  Norse-American,  and  in  his  bright  lexicon  no 
such  word  as  "fail"  could  be  found. 

All  attempts  to  build  up  class  hatred  in  this  country  must 
fail.      We     stand     for    cooperation,    reciprocity,    mutuality. 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  127 

"Once  a  laborer,  always  a  laborer,"  is  not  our  shibboleth. 
I  never  ask  a  man  I  hire  whether  he  belongs  to  a  union 
any  more  than  I  would  ask  if  he  belongs  to  a  church.  That 
is  his  business.  I  most  certainly  would  not  ask  him  to  re- 
nounce his  union  unless  the  union  were  trying  to  throttle 
him.  Even  then  it  is  his  affair.  But  certainly  we  will  not 
be  dictated  to  by  men  with  less  intelligence,  energy,  initiative 
and  ambition  than  we  ourselves  possess. 

Our  labor  union  friends  are  lifting  a  fine  cry  about  the 
injustice  of  injunctions.  But  what  is  their  whole  intent  but 
to  place  an  injunction  of  fear  and  coercion  upon  the  em- 
ployer, so  that  he  dare  not  turn  a  wheel  without  permission! 

There  are  inequalities  in  this  country  that  must  be 
worked  out;  there  are  injustices  that  must  be  righted;  but 
the  boycott,  the  club,  the  fagot,  the  bomb  and  the  secret 
conclave — the  air-brakes  on  prosperity's  wheels — can  never 
right  them.  We  must  bring  patience,  good  nature  and  rea- 
son to  bear.  To  solve  the  problems  we  must  discuss,  agitate, 
write,  talk  and  educate — and  again  educate.  Some  day,  then, 
the  fog  will  lift,  and  the  sun  will  shine  out.  In  fact,  it  is 
beginning  to  shine  out  now. 

To  belong  to  a  union  is  all  right,  but  to  say  that  the 
man  who  does  not  belong  to  a  union  shall  not  be  allowed 
to  labor  is  all  wrong.  Then  to  go  further  and  say  that  the 
man  who  employs  a  man  who  does  not  belong  to  a  union 
shall  be  starved  out  of  business  is  absurd — and  worse. 

The  closed  shop  stands  for  tyranny  and  oppression.  It 
blocks  human  evolution,  destroys  initiative  and  fosters  hate. 
Unionism  stands  for  disunion.  It  perpetuates  distrust,  and 
makes  division  permanent.  It  places  an  injunction  on 
progress,  and  chains  the  laborer  to  his  bench.  It  organizes 
enmity,  and  makes  a  system  of  suspicion.  Unionism  does 
not  strive  to  get  the  work  done — its  intent  is  to  make  it 
last.  And  it  never  means  better  work,  because  better  work 
demands  greater  devotion,  more  patience,  a  finer  loyalty. 
The  union  keeps  in  your  shop  workmen  you  otherwise 
would  not  have,  unless  they  mended  their  ways  and  man- 
ners. It  makes  the  slipshod  perpetual,  and  the  shiftless 
everlasting,  by  placing  a  premium  on  distrust  and  separat- 
ing the  employer  from  the  employed.  They  never  get  ac- 
quainted. 


128  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

THE  OPEN  SHOP  FIGHT  ^ 

Fear,  rather  than  wisdom  or  knowledge  is  behind  the 
declaration  of  the  National  Catholic  Welfare  council  against 
the  so-called  "open  shop"  drive.  In  the  first  place,  there  is 
no  concerted  action  against  the  closed  shop.  In  the  sec- 
ond, the  eflforts  of  some  employers  to  secure  the  "open 
shop"  do  not  aim  at  the  destruction  of  unionism,  as  the 
reported  declaration  of  the  social  action  department  of  the 
council  alleges.  There  is  no  evidence  that  the  alleged 
statements  of  the  department  are  correct.  .  They  assume 
much  more   than  they  can  prove. 

The  fight  for  the  "open  shop"  is  a  fight  for  American 
freedom  of  contract  for  efficiency  and  the  right  to  work. 
Its  advocates  believe  that  each  worker  will  do  his  best  if 
he  is  rewarded  in  proportion  to  the  quality  and  quantity 
of  his  labor.  The  closed  shop  militates  against  the  de- 
velopment of  individual  skill,  because  it  places  all  workers 
on  a  dead  level,  and  crushes  individual  initiative.  It  hinders 
efficiency  also  because  union  rules  prevent  the  retention 
of  good  men,  an  unscientific  system  of  seniority  being  in- 
sisted upon.  In  the  "open  shop"  the  individual  obtains  his 
chance  by  good  work  and  fidelity  to  the  interests  of  his  em- 
ployer. This  latter  is  a  quality  generally  absent  from  the 
closed  shop  because  of  the  extent  to  which  the  socialistic 
spirit  has  permeated   the  ranks   of  the  unions. 

Though  we  claim  that  there  is  no  concerted  drive  for 
the  open  shop,  the  sentiment  for  it  has  spread  among  em- 
ployers, so  that  we  may  say  that  there  is  a  strong  move- 
ment for  it.  And  this  is  not  dictated  by  hostility  to  union- 
ism. We  have  seen  how  the  closed  shop  militates  against 
American  ideals  of  individual  liberty  and  efficiency.  Em- 
ployers also  have  become  weary  of  the  manner  in  which 
unions  have  come  to  conduct  themselves  in  recent  years. 
Unions  have  like  the  Anti-Saloon  league,  become  bullies, 
having  grown  until  they  terrorize  both  employer  and 
worker.  They  have  left  the  owner  of  the  closed  shop  vir- 
tually no  voice  in  the  conduct  of  his  business.  But  this 
does  not  place  the  employer  in  opposition  to  real  construc- 

1  Editorial,   Rochester    (N.   Y.)    Post  Express.     November    13,   1920. 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  129 

tive  unionism.  He  is  opposed  to  the  evils  that  have  grown 
into  unionism,  not  to  the  thing  itself.  It  is  but  natural  that  with 
access  of  power  evils  should  have  crept  into  unionism.  In  this 
it  differs  not  a  whit  from  other  human  institutions.  Employers 
do  not  regard  collective  bargaining  as  necessarily  evil.  They 
are  not  fighting  it.  Whatever  fight  they  may  put  up  against 
bargaining  is  against  that  kind  of  bargaining  in  which  the 
employer  gets  all   the  worst  of  the  bargain. 

Since  there  is  no  "drive"  against  unionism,  but  against  its 
evils,  and  since  the  fight  that  is  in  some  cases  being  made  for 
the  open  shop  is  not  a  movement  detrimental  to  the  welfare  of 
the  wage  earner,  but  to  his  advantage,  the  charge  of  the  welfare 
council's  department  that  the  move  will  foster  radicalism  falls 
to-  the  ground. 

THE  CLOSED  SHOP* 

The  "closed  shop"  is  a  system  prevailing  in  factories  con- 
ducted under  a  fixed  rule  that  none  but  union  men  in  good 
standing  shall  be  employed.  It  is  called  the  "closed  shop"  be- 
cause its  doors  are  barred  against  all  employees  whom  the 
union  does  not  recognize,  and  it  is  contrasted ,  with  the  "open 
shop,"  where  both  union  and  non-union  men  are  employed  with- 
out discrimination  against  either.  The  non-union  man  may  be 
denied  union  membership;  he  may  have  been  suspended  or  ex- 
pelled, or  he  may  not  desire  membership,  but  in  either  of  these 
three  contingencies,  the  fact  and  not  the  reason  that  he  is  non- 
union is  the  conclusive  disqualification  against  employment  in 
a  closed  shop.  As  the  employer  cannot  review  the  union's  ad- 
judication that  a  man  is  non-union,  and  as  in  most  unions,  like 
all  secret  societies,  an  applicant  for  rnembership  must  be  ap- 
proved or  voted  in,  and  no  court  or  any  other  authority  can  re- 
view the  organization's  action  in  rejecting  the  applicant,  the 
result  is  that  no  man  can  secure  employment  in  a  "closed  shop" 
except  by  consent  of  the  union. 

The  demand  for  the  closed  shop  by  the  great  majority  of 
labor  organizations,  and  the  devices  and  combinations  adopted 
to  compel  all  employers  to  submit  to  it,  together  with  its  funda- 
mental antagonism  to  our  traditional  principles  and  liberties, 
make  it  an  issue,  difficult  to  compromise  or  adjust.    In  many  in- 

'  Pamphlet    by    Walter    Gordon    Merritt. 


130  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

stances,  unions  and  employers  that  are  willing  to  arbitrate  all 
other  questions  are  kept  from  agreement  because  they  regard  it 
as  a  matter  of  principle  and  not  for  compromise.  The  union 
says  it  cannot  perform  its  functions  without  insisting  upon  the 
closed  shop,  and  the  employer  says  every  capable  man  is  entitled 
to  equal  opportunities  in  seeking  employment,  whether  he  is  'a 
Catholic  or  Protestant,  a  union  man  or  non-union  man.  The 
issue  is  the  cause  of  so  many  strikes  and  the  prolongation  of  so 
many  more,  that  it  is  worthy  of  thorough  attention. 

The  first  thought  that  strikes  one  who  studies  trade  union 
policies,  is  the  prevalence  of  the  demand  for  the  closed  shop, 
the  almost  universal  hatred  by  the  union  of  the  employer  and 
employee  who  does  not  conform  to  it,  and  the  remarkable 
ingenuity  and  ability  displayed  by  the  unions  in  their  effort  to 
drive  from  the  market  the  open  shop  employer,  open  shop  prod- 
ucts, and  the  non-union  man,  together  with  the  irresistible  power 
of  their  extensive  combinations  for  that  purpose.  Most  of 
their  unlawful  acts  are  designed  to  forward  the  "closed  shop." 
"Show  me  an  injunction  granted,"  says  the  president  of  the 
carpenters'  union,  "and  I  will  show  you  one  more  link  forged  in 
the  chain  of  open  shop  dogma." 

It  is  fair  to  state  that  nearly  all  the  important  labor  organi- 
zations pursue  a  policy  of  discrimination  against  the  non-union 
man  and  all  who  associate  with  him,  and  the  best  proof  of  this 
assertion  lies  in  the  examination  of  the  records  and  policy  of  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor,  which  includes  most  of  the  trade 
unions  of  the  country.  Mr.  Gompers,  who  is  the  head  of  this 
institution,  speaking  for  the  federated  unions  which  he  repre- 
sents, assumes  his  customary  uncompromising  tone  and  says: 
"As  the  immortal  Lincoln  said:  This  country  cannot  long 
remain  half  free  and  half  slave.'  So  say  we,  that  any  establish- 
ment cannot  long  remain  or  be  successfully  operated  part  union 
and  part  non-union."  John  Mitchell,  another  officer  of  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor,  in  his  optimistic  view  of  organ- 
ized labor,  apparently  expects  that  all  the  country  will  even- 
tually pay  homage  to  the  "closed  shop,"  and  that  the  rights  of 
the  independent  worker  will  to  that  extent  be  abandoned.  He 
is  author  of  the  statement  that  "with  the  rapid  extension  of 
trade  unions,  the  tendency  is  toward  the  growth  of  compulsory 
membership  in  them  and  the  time  will  doubtless  come  when  this 
compulsion  will  be  as  general  and  will  be  considered  as  little  of 
a  grievance  as  the  compulsory  attendance  of  children  at  school." 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  131 

The  criticism  of  the  "closed  shop"  Hes  not  so  much  against 
this  regime  in  the  isolated  cases  where  it  might  be  mutually  and 
voluntarily  sought  and  desired,  but  to  the  penalties  and  difficul- 
ties with  which  employers  and  employees  are  confronted  for  re- 
fusing to  conform.  For  this  reason  one  cannot  form  an  intelli- 
gent judgment  on  the  issue  until  familiar  with  the  methods  em- 
ployed to   secure   its   adoption. 

The  strike  is  usually  the  first  weapon  employed  to  unionize  or 
close  a  shop.  The  employer  is  told,  in  effect,  that  if  he  retains 
any  non-union  men  in  his  employ,  the  substantial  part  of  his 
working  force  will  quit  work  in  concert,  his  entire  business 
organization,  of  foremen,  assistant  foremen,  inspectors  and 
skilled  help,  will  be  destroyed  and  his  business  paralyzed  until 
such  time  as  he  can  reorganize.  Court  decisions  which  con- 
demn such  a  combination  state  that  if  this  attitude  is  aimed 
at  some  unskilled  or  truly  undesirable  associate,  the  combina- 
tion is  justified  and  legal,  but  the  mere  fact  that  a  man  is  non- 
union affords  no  excuse  for  a  movement  of  such  coercive  power 
to  deprive  him  of  employment.  By  methods  similar  to  this, 
non-union  workmen  have  been  followed  from  one  position  to 
another  and  their  discharge  successively  dictated  by  the  same 
threat  addressed  to  their  successive  employers. 

In  cases  where  strikes  fail  of  their  purpose,  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor,  with  a  constitution  providing  for  boy- 
cotting, has  elaborate  and  powerful  boycotting  machinery 
available  to  each  affiliated  union  in  its  efforts  to  enforce  the 
closed  shop.  The  Federation  has  a  total  membership  of  nearly 
2,000,000  members,  controlling  a  purchasing  power  of  10,000,000 
— over  a  tenth  of  our  entire  population.  This  membership  is 
enjoined  to  observe  all  boycotts  under  penalty  of  fines  or  ex- 
pulsion, and  is  divided  and  sub-divided  into  national  trade  un- 
ions, some  30,000  local  unions,  over  500  city  federations,  and 
some  30  state  federations.  The  500  city  federations  are  local 
federations  of  all  the  unions  in  a  particular  city,  while  the 
state  federations  hold  the  same  relation  to  all  the  unions  in  a 
particular  state.  Thus  the  organizers  of  the  American  Fed- 
eration of  Labor,  of  which  there  are  about  1400,  and  the  or- 
ganizers of  the  different  trade  unions,  can  at  any  time  com- 
mand the  entire  organized  force  of  all  labor  unions  in  a  city 
or  all  labor  unions  in  a  state,  in  their  efforts  to  prevent  a  lo- 
cal dealer  handling  merchandise  produced  by  an  open  shop 
employer.     With   agents   in   every   trade  center  of   the   country 


132  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

and  local  federations  of  all  trades  to  act  at  their  commands, 
with  travelling  agents  going  from  city  to  city,  and  spies  to  de- 
tect open  shop  shipments  and  telegraph  the  information  to  the 
unions  at  the  place  of  consignment, — lo  we  have  a  phenomenon 
hitherto  unknown  in  cither  democratic  or  despotic  states,  with 
its  branches  like  veins  throughtout  our  entire  society.  When 
we  reflect  on  the  utter  impossibility  of  escaping  from  the  ob- 
servation and  tyranny  of  this  movement  in  any  remote  section 
of  the  country  where  it  may  choose  to  pursue,  and  remember 
that  it  is  largely  designed  and  manipulated  to  eliminate  the 
non-union  worker  from  industry,  our  feelings  change  to 
alarm.  All  other  attempts  at  secret  orders  and  societies  or  the 
conduct  of  organized  feuds  pale  into  insignificance  before  the 
ramifications,  power  and  aspirations  of  this  institution.  The 
idea  staggers  the  imagination,  for  it  discloses  the  irresistible 
machinery  of  an  army  of  well-disciplined  men  against  which 
the  non-conformist  is  helpless. 

Unfortunately,  the  use  of  the  union  label  is  another  ex- 
ample of  the  same  tyranny  and  intolerance,  for  had  it  not 
been  for  this  general  persecution  by  organized  labor  and  its 
desire  to  exclude  the  unorganized  workers,  the  union  label 
would  never  have  been  brought  into  operation.  In  substan- 
tially all  the  trades,  the  primary  object  of  the  adoption  and 
use  of  the  union  label  is  to  encourage  the  trade  of  those  em- 
ployers who  reject  the  non-union  man  and  discourage  the 
trade  of  those  who  employ  him.  It  is  another  way  of  dis- 
criminating against  the  employer  who  harbors  the  non-con- 
formist. In  practically  no  instance  does  it  appear  that  the  un- 
ion label  stands  primarily  for  such  legitimate  purposes  as  skill, 
hours,  wages,  sanitary  conditions  and  other  conditions  of  em- 
ployment which  it  is  right  and  just  that  the  workers  should 
fight  for.  The  only  universal  test  of  the  right  to  use  the  un- 
ion label  is  the  agreement  to  discriminate  against  the  non-un- 
ion worker. 

The  American  Federation  of  Labor  publishes  what  is  called 
a  union  label  gallery,  which  gives  in  pictorial  form  the  labels 
of  about  one  hundred  trades,  all  of  which  have  the  indorse- 
ment of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  and  the  powerful 
machinery  of  all  its  branches  to  support  them.  In  this  way 
these  labels  become  passports  to  the  market  which  assure 
wholesaler  and  retailer  that  they  may  safely  purchase  the 
goods,  while  their  absence     stamps     the     merchandise     as     the 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  133 

handiwork  of  non-union  toil  and  therefore  to  be  shunned  and 
boycotted  or  purchased  at  one's  peril. 

Another  effective  way  of  discriminating  against  the  non- 
union worker  is  shown  by  the  methods  employed  by  the  United 
Brotherhood  of  Carpenters,  which  is  probably  the  most  power- 
ful trade  organization  in  the  United  States.  The  builder  who 
purchases  open  shop  woodwork,  however,  cannot  be  so  easily 
intimidated  by  any  attempt  to  withdraw  patronage  from  him, 
and  can  only  be  reached  through  depriving  him  of  the  neces- 
sary skilled  help  to  conduct  his  business  and  utilize  the  wood- 
work which  he  purchases.  Consequently,  the  Carpenters'  Un- 
ion, with  its  membership  of  over  200,000  has  adopted  a  regu- 
lation whereby  each  of  the  carpenters  is  forbidden  under  pen- 
alty of  ten  dollars  to  handle  or  work  upon  any  materials  which 
come  from  an  open  shop.  The  manufacturer's  customers,  or 
those  who  might  be  customers,  are  told  that  if  they  purchase 
the  products  of  these  open  shops,  strikes  will  be  called  upon 
the  buildings  which  they  are  constructing.  If  the  customer 
desiring  to  utilize  open  shop  materials  should  employ  non-union 
men  to  perform  the  work  of  installing  them,  he  is  confronted 
by  another  rule  that  no  union  carpenters  will  work  for  him  or 
any  other  contractor  on  any  building  where  non-union  men 
are  employed.  The  carpenters  are  also  successful  in  inciting 
sympathetic  strikes  of  other  trades  to  enforce  this  position. 
The  individual  carpenters  employed  seldom  have  any  sympathy 
with  the  enforcement  of  these  rules,  and  would  gladly  work 
on  the  "open  shop"  materials  but  for  their  fear  of  the  dele- 
gates and  the  fines   which  might   follow. 

So  effective  has  this  combination  become  on  the  Island  of 
Manhattan,  that  practically  no  wood  trim  which  is  produced  or 
worked  upon  by  any  non-union  woodworker  can  enter  into  the 
construction  of  buildings  on  that  island.  Most  of  the  larger 
builders,  in  order  to  avoid  the  constant  repetition  of  strikes 
against  open  shop  woodwork,  have  entered  into  a  formal  written 
agreement  for  a  period  of  years  not  to  purchase  it,  although  it 
can  be  secured  at  prices  twenty-five  per  cent,  cheaper  than  the 
union  material.  In  this  way  has  the  price  of  rents  been  in- 
creased by  artificially  increasing  the  cost  of  building. 

Recently,  a  more  formidable  combination  than  these  two 
just  cited  has  been  formed  to  further  this  same  attack  upon  the 
rights  of  any  worker  who  does  not  subscribe  to  the  union  princi- 
ples.    Some  ten  national   organizations,   including  the   machin- 


134  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

ists,  sheet  metal  workers  and  moulders,  have  formed  a  separate 
department  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  in  order  that, 
among  other  things,  they  may  assist  each  other  in  carrying  out 
work  of  this  kind.  This  department  has  issued  notices  from  its 
headquarters,  Washington,  D.C.,  to  the  various  unions  belonging 
to  it,  directing  them  not  to  handle  or  work  upon  the  machinery 
or  other  metal  work  of  particular  concerns  which  have  refused 
to  unionize  mills  and  reject  the  non-union  man.  As  a  result  of 
this  manifesto,  strikes  have  been  called  in  different  parts  of  the 
country  against  this  class  of   non-union  products. 

All  of  the  numerous  trades  connected  with  the  construction 
of  buildings  and  affiliated  with  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor  have  likewise  formed  a  special  department  connected 
with  the  Federation,  which  is  known  as  the  Building  Trades' 
Department.  Through  its  headquarters  at  Washington,  it  is 
able  to  direct  strikes  and  boycotts  against  the  building  products 
of  any  concern  which  is  not  being  conducted  in  accordance 
with  the  demands  of  any  of  the  affiliated  unions,  and  the  usual 
method  is  to  call  out  all  trades  on  any  building  where  open  shop 
materials  are  being  used.  This  department  has  passed  a  resolu- 
tion to  aid  the  Metal  Trades'  Department,  by  refusing  to  handle 
any  metal  products  or  materials  which  are  not  made  in  closed 
shops,  and  the  co-operation  of  these  two  departments  in  the 
work  of  excluding  and  discriminating  against  the  non-union 
worker  and  non-union  products,  presents  a  formidable  scheme 
which  is  most  alarming  to  this  persecuted  class. 

If,  according  to  closed  shop  advocates,  methods  such  as  we 
have  been  examining  are  going  to  make  union  membership  a 
necessary  qualification  for  employment,  it  becomes  material  to 
consider  under  what  conditions  a  man  can  become  or  remain  a 
member.  No  man  has  an  enforcible  legal  right  to  membership 
in  any  trade  union  any  more  than  he  has  in  any  private  order 
or  society.  If  he  applies  for  membership,  or  his  name  is  pre- 
sented by  some  friendly  member,  he  may  be  rejected  or  "black 
balled,"  as  the  expression  goes,  in  the  same  way  that  he  might 
be  so  treated  by  any  private  society.  In  some  instances,  non- 
union men  who  have  displeased  the  organization  have  been 
admitted  on  condition  that  they  would  pay  large  fines  as  a 
penalty  for  past  "scabbing."  Some  men  who  have  once  been 
members  and  withdrawn  have  been  obliged  to  pay  dues  on  the 
wages  they  earned  for  the  years  that  intervened.  Unions  have 
also  seen  fit  to  close  the  doors  to  all  applicants  for  a  given  period 


THE   CLOSED   SHOP  135 

of  time  because  it  was  thought  that  the  membership  was  grow- 
ing too  large.  Other  restrictions  relate  to  the  years  and  con- 
ditions when  a  man  may  join,  and  state  that  he  must  serve  an 
apprenticeship  of  three  years  and  must  begin  between  the  ages 
of  18  and  21.  All  older  men  are  thus  excluded  except  in  certain 
emergencies  where  the  rules  are  suspended,  and  as  the  number 
of  apprentices  is  usually  limited  by  the  union  even  the  younger 
men  are  often  barred  except  upon  the  payment  of  "graft"  money 
to  the  officers  in  charge.  Some  unions  discriminate  systemat- 
ically against  foreigners.  The  carpenters'  union,  with  1900 
branches  or  local  unions  throughout  the  United  States,  will  not 
admit  a  person  to  membership  except  on  the  majority  vote 
of  the  members  of  the  local  to  which  application  is  made,  and  if 
he  is  rejected  by  that  branch  he  cannot  thereafter  be  admitted 
by  any  one  of  the  1900  locals  except  by  consent  of  the  union  to 
wHich  he  made  first  application  and  a  two-thirds'  vote  of  the 
union  to  which  he  made  second  application.  Thus  the  action  of 
a  local  union  in  California  actuated  as  it  might  be  by  a  group 
of  members  owing  the  applicant  some  personal  grudge,  may  keep 
a  man  from  employment  in  New  York  or  any  other  state  under 
the  "closed  shop"  regime.  Such  are  some  of  the  difficulties 
which  must  often  be  overcome  by  him  who  would  join  the  union. 

The  same  problem  arises  after  a  man  has  joined  the  union, 
inasmuch  as  he  may  be  unjustly  fined,  suspended  or  expelled. 
Again,  the  union  would  to  a  large  extent  have  a  final  and  con- 
clusive voice  on  his  right  to  earn  a  livelihood,  if  membership  be- 
came a  necessary  qualification  under  the  "closed-shop"  system. 

A  few  illustrations  from  actual  life  will  suggest  the  tribula- 
tions of  union  men  under  a  limited  closed  shop  system. 

In  one  instance,  in  the  hatting  trade  in  Danbury,  an  Irish- 
man with  a  crippled  wife  loyally  observed  the  union  orders 
during  a  costly  and  prolonged  strike,  which  soon  exhausted 
the  union  treasury  and  the  funds  of  this  and  most  other 
workmen  involved.  He  borrowed  from  a  relative  who  had 
no  money  to  spare,  in  order  that  he  and  his  wife  might  exist 
during  the  stringency,  and  when  the  employers  yielded,  re- 
turned to  work  with  the  other  men  under  some  arrangement 
which  provided  that  the  shops  were  not  to  be  union  for  a  per- 
iod of  three  months.  At  the  end  of  that  time,  the  union  dele- 
gates called  upon  the  men  to  pay  dues  based  on  their  wages 
during  that  period.  The  Irishman  did  not  have  the  money, 
and  the  union  under  its  rules  owed  him  more  for  strike  bene- 


136  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

fits  than  he  owed  it.  He  told  them,  however,  that  his  first 
duty  was  to  repay  his  relative  who  loaned  him  the  money  when 
he  was  in  severe  straits,  and  that  he  would  then  see  that  the 
union  received  every  cent.  The  union  refused  to  wait  and  the 
factory  was  struck,  until  the  man  was  discharged.  He  tried 
then  to  secure  other  employment,  but  all  union  shops  were 
closed  to  him.  The  conditions  drove  him  from  his  native 
town,  and  he  eventually  ended  as  a  day  laborer  receiving  $1.50 
a  day  instead  of  his  former  wages  ranging  from  $18.00  to 
$25.00  per  week. 

A  poor  Jew  was  treated  in  a  similar  way  because  he  would 
not  pay  an  arbitrary  fine  of  one  dollar  imposed  on  him  for 
exceeding  the  union,  limit  of  work  in  a  forenoon,  although  the 
work  which  he  did  in  the  entire  day  did  not  exceed  the  union 
limit  for  the  day.  He  was  a  skilled  workman  receiving  high 
wages,  but  for  over  a  year  he  diligently  sought  work  without 
being  able  to  find  any  because  of  the  control  which  the  union 
had  over  the  industry.  The  fellow's  courage  was  admirable 
or  he  would  have  paid  the  fine  and  yielded.  He  informed  me 
that  the  union  frequently  imposed  fines  like  this  on  any  pre- 
tence, and  then  a  group  of  members  would  go  out  and  buy 
drinks   with   it. 

The  writer  is  personally  acquainted  with  the  case  of  an- 
other man  who  was  so  persecuted  in  this  way  that  he  was 
driven  insane.  In  other  instances,  the  value  of  union  member- 
ship as  a  protection  against  interference  has  been  sufficient  to 
make  men   submit  to  fines   of  approximately  $1,000. 

These  facts  illustrate  some  of  the  difficulties  which  may 
confront  a  man  who  desires  to  be  a  union  man.  If  member- 
ship in  the  union  is  made  synonymous  with  an  opportunity  to 
pursue  a  trade  as  it  would  be  in  the  closed  shop  regime,  there 
would  be  no  redress  from  unjust  union  action  which  kept  a 
man  from  his  trade  by  keeping  him  out  of  the  union.  While 
a  private  organization  may  properly  control  the  selection  of 
its  own  membership,  one  of  the  principal  functions  of  govern- 
ment is  to  protect  liberty  and  the  right  to  pursue  a  trade. 
This  truism  discloses  the  fundamental  error  of  the  closed  shop 
idea.  If  there  is  one  condition  incompatible  with  the  principles 
of  democracy  and  liberty,  it  is  a  state  where  the  rights  and  op- 
portunities of  pursuing  a  trade  are  controlled  and  monopolized 
by  an  irresponsible  body  of  private  citizens.  When  man  was 
created  with  a   mouth  to   feed   and  a  back  to   clothe,   no   en- 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  137 

lightened  government  can  permit  private  citizens  to  place  arbi- 
trary restrictions  on  his  opportunities  to  obtain  employment. 
Such  a  condition,  maintained  though  it  may  be  by  a  combina- 
tion of  working  people,  is  fraught  with  the  same  objections 
and  evils  as  the  despotism  of  any  monarch  or  oligarchy.  His- 
tory has  many  times  taught  us  that  tyranny  rests  no  more  in 
the  will  of  a  monarch  than  in  the  uncontrolled  spirit  of  a  mob. 
In  mediaeval  times,  when  guilds  controlled  the  right  to  work 
at  given  crafts,  interlopers  have  been  burned  at  the  stake,  sent 
to  the  galleys,  and  had  their  establishments  broken  up  by 
force,  for  no  other  reason  than  the  fact  that  they  belonged  to 
a  rival  guild  or  pursued  a  trade  without  consent  of  the  guild. 
The  theory  of  our  government  was  to  avoid  all  tyranny  and 
despotism  of  this  kind  from  any  source,  even  though  it  be 
the  majority  vote  of  the  citizens  of  our  country,  by  protecting 
under  our  constitution  certain  individual  rights  which,  while 
that  constitution  exists,  cannot  be  encroached  upon  by  the  gov- 
ernment itself,  to  say  nothing  of  combinations  of  private  in- 
dividuals. Among  those  rights  none  is  more  important  than 
that  of  earning  a  livelihood,  and  any  combination  of  people 
to  wrest  that  right  from  all  citizens  and  bestow  it  upon  a  fa- 
vored class  aims  at  the  very  genius  of  our  free  institutions. 
It  is  difficult  to  improve  on  the  language  of  the  United  States 
Supreme  Court  as  follows : — 

Monopolies  are  the  bane  of  our  body  politic  at  the  present  day.  In 
the  eager  pursuit  of  gain  they  are  sought  in  every  connection.  They 
exhibit  themselves  in  corners  in  the  stock  market  and  produce  market 
and  in  many  other  ways.  If,  by  legislative  enactment,  they  can  be  car- 
ried into  the  common  avocations  and  callings  of  life,  so  as  to  cut  off 
the  right  of  the  citizen  to  choose  his  avocation — the  right  to  earn  his 
bread  by  the  trade  which  he  has  learned — and  if  there  is  no  constitutional 
means  of  putting  a  check  to  such  enormity,  I  can  only  say  that  it  is 
time   that   that   constitution    was   still   further    amended. 

And  again  the  same  tribunal  says : — 

The  very  idea  that  one  man  may  be  compelled  to  hold  his  life  or 
the  means  of  living,  or  any  material  right  essentia!  to  tne  enjoyment  of 
life,  at  the  mere  will  of  another,  seems  to  be  intolerable  \n  any  country 
where    freedom   prevails,   as   being   the  essence    of  slavery  itself. 

If  a  commercial  nation  in  peaceful  times  cannot  protect  the 
rights  of  its  working  class  to  secure  employment  from  those 
who  wish  to  employ  them,  it  has  lamentably  failed.  If  the 
chance  to  seek  and  earn  a  living  is  to  be  vouchsafed  by  the 
grace  and  favor  of  a  private  organization  instead  of  being 
guaranteed  by  the  government  as  in  the  past,  surely  that  in- 
stitution will  rule  in  this  country,  and  no  other. 


138  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

Another  indictment  of  the  closed  shop  is  that  it  seeks  and 
maintains  monopoHstic  prices,  and  if  successful,  would  be  more 
oppressive  to  our  people  in  this  way  than  any  other  monopoly 
We  hate  monopolies  largely  because  they  raise  prices  and 
eliminate  competition.  In  this  way,  the  citizen  who  does  not 
profit  by  the  monopoly  has  an  unfair  burden  placed  upon  him. 
The  monopoly  of  any  one  craft  of  labor,  like  carpentry,  does 
the  same,  for  the  charges  made  by  employers  necessarily  fol- 
low the  rise  of  the  inflated  demands  of  the  labor  monoply. 
To-day  the  carpenter  in  New  York  receives  five  dollars  a  day, 
which  is  more  than  is  paid  in  most  trades,  and  we  are  paying 
25  to  50  per  cent,  more  for  the  wood  materials  they  erect  in 
order  to  avoid  purchases  of  open  shops.  The  craft  which 
does  not  share  this  monopoly  must  pay  correspondingly  more 
for  the  rent  of  buildings  which  the  carpenter  erects  without 
any  corresponding  increase  in  its  wages.  The  non-producer  is 
a  similar  sufferer.  The  consummation  of  the  closed  shop 
scheme  would  do  more  than  all  combinations  of  capital  to 
raise  prices  and  the  cost  of  living,  as  the  wages  fixed  by  the 
union  regime,  with  complete  control  over  its  craft,  would  fur- 
nish a  basis  for  the  cost  of  production  above  which  all  em- 
ployers, however  sharply  competing,  would  be  obliged  to  figure 
some  margin  of  profit. 

The  general  public  would  also  be  injured  in  another  way. 
If  labor  unions,  by  the  consummation  of  their  "Closed  Shop" 
aims,  can  command  obedience  from  all  workers,  the  entire 
body  of  workers  engaged  in  industry  and  transportation  can 
and  will  be  marched  out  in  combined  opposition,  on  any  issue 
affecting  some  one  man.  Such  widespread  disturbances  inflict 
great  damage  on  disinterested  parties  and  threaten  the  stabil- 
ity of  government  itself.  But  recently  all  transportation  in 
Ireland  was  interrupted  because  a  few  porters  were  discharged 
for  refusing  to  handle  the  materials  of  a  boycotted  firm.  The 
sympathetic  strikes  of  all  industries  in  Philadelphia,  at  the 
time  of  the  traction  strike,  threatened  to  become  state-wide  and 
would  have  become  so  under  closed  shop  conditions.  The 
Debs  strikes  of  1893  paralyzed  the  service  of  all  railroads  en- 
tering Chicago  because  they  hauled  cars  of  the  boycotted  Pull- 
man Company.  These  sympathetic  combinations  disrupting 
satisfactory  relations  of  neutral  employers  and  employees,  and 
inflicting  loss  and  rioting  on  the  public,  are  among  the  worst 
features   of   trade   unionism   today,   and   the  main   restraint   on 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  139 

them  is  the  fear  on  the  part  of  labor  leaders  that  they  can- 
not make  them  succeed.  Under  the  closed  shop  rule,  the  con- 
duct of  men  could  be  dictated  without  fear  of  recalcitrancy 
and  the  whole  country  thrown  into  turmoil  over  some  local 
and  unimportant  complaint. 

An  employer  confronted  with  the  demand  for  the  closed 
shop  has  three  alternatives :  He  may  yield  to  the  demands, 
thereby  sacrificing  for  mammon  the  liberty  of  himself  and  his 
employees,  and  forwarding  the  aims  of  this  combination.  He 
may  combine  with  other  employers  to  destroy  unions,  or  he 
may  seek  relief  in  the  courts  by  injunction  or  otherwise,  which 
he  has  been  constantly  doing  and  for  which  he  has  been  much 
criticized.  But  no  ordinary  employer  can  single-handed,  with- 
out the  protection  of  his  government  or  the  co-operation  of 
his  fellow  employers,  withstand  the  attacks  of  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor  or  even  one  union  like  the  carpenters' 
union,  in  their  efforts  to  compel  him  to  reject  all  men  who  do 
not  belong  to  their  organization  or  some  affiliated  body.  H  the 
courts  will  not  protect  him  and  if  he  is  determined  not  to 
yield,  the  one  thing  left  for  him  to  do  is  to  unite  with  other 
employers  in  adopting  the  same  methods  which  the  unions 
themselves  are  adopting,  until  he  has  so  completely  severed  all 
connection  with  the  labor  organizations  that  they  are  obliged 
to  disband.  H  it  is  lawful  to  employ  such  extraordinary  meth- 
ods as  the  boycott  in  order  to  eliminate  the  open  shop  and  the 
non-union  man,  coresponding  methods  can  be  lawfully  em- 
ployed to  eliminate  trades'  unions.  The  legaHty  of  a  com- 
bination not  to  work  for  or  deal  with  a  man  who  deals  with 
an  open  shop,  cannot  differ  from  the  legality  of  a  combination 
of  employers  not  to  buy  from  or  sell  to  any  one  who  pur- 
chases a  union  article  or  employs  a  union  man.  li  the  courts 
should  uphold  these  combinations  and  the  employers  in  the 
cause  of  self-defense  should  also  take  up  this  war  of  dis- 
crimination the  result  could  bie  no  other  than  the  disintegration 
of  trades'  unions.  Such  a  war  is  to  be  avoided  by  judicial 
protection.  The  trade  union  should  be  permitted  to  exist  and 
should  be  protected  against  any  combination  of  employers  to 
destroy  it  by  making  it  difficult  for  its  members  to  obtain  em- 
ployment. Likewise,  the  non-union  man  and  those  who  choose 
to  employ  him  have  a  right  to  exist,  and  a  combination  to 
drive  him  into  the  organization  or  out  of  the  trade  should  be 
suppressed, 


I40  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

The  statute  books  of  at  least  twenty-one  states  and  terri- 
tories and  the  federal  statute  books  contain  laws  forbidding 
discrimination  against  union  labor,  but  I  know  of  no  statute 
which  in  terms  forbids  the  union  discriminating  against  non- 
union labor,  although  there  are  one  or  two  laws  which  might 
have  that  effect.  There  is  also  a  considerable  amount  of  class 
legislation  requiring  state  and  municipal  contracts  to  be  ex- 
ecuted with  union  labor  and  union  materials.  All  of  these 
laws  show  the  influence  organized  labor  has  exercised  in  our 
legislatures  in  its  efforts  to  protect  its  own  organizations 
against  the  identical  tactics  it  is  employing  and  in  its  efforts 
to  drive  out  the  non-union  man.  The  statutes  forbidding  the 
individual  employer  discriminating  against  the  union  worker 
have  generally  been  declared  unconstitutional,  but  it  is  still  pos- 
sible to  pass  a  law  which  forbids  any  combination  of  employ- 
ers pursuing  this  practice.  Nothing  could  be  fairer  than  to 
place  upon  the  statute  books  in  all  the  states  a  law  which  for- 
bids any  combination  on  the  part  of  any  class  of  people, 
whether  employers  or  employees,  to  discriminate  against  a 
man  on  the  ground  that  he  is  or  is  not  a  member  of  a  labor 
union.  In  behalf  of  such  a  law  it  can  well  be  said  that  its 
purpose  is  to  aid  the  fundamental  principles  upon  which  our 
government  is  based,  for  the  avowed  objects  of  the  labor  un- 
ions in  pursuing  such  policies  as  the  closed  shop  are  the  anti- 
theses of  the  avowed  objects  of  our  government.  Govern- 
ment seeks  the  greatest  possible  protection  of  the  freedom  and 
liberties  of  all  citizens,  including  the  right  to  earn  a  livelihood 
without  let  or  hindrance  from  outside  parties,  and  nearly  all 
of  the  practices  of  labor  organizations  are  moulded  to  make  it 
dangerous,  difficult  or  disagreeable  for  a  man  to  obtain  em- 
ployment except  upon  submission  to  such  conditions  as  they 
impose.  "Live  and  let  live"  might  well  be  called  the  maxim 
underlying  the  rights  of  our  citizens,  but  a  combination  of  a 
million  or  more  citizens  to  withdraw  services  or  patronage 
from  him  who  deals  with  the  non-union  man  or  his  products, 
instead  of  following  this  rule,  becomes  a  powerful  persecutor 
from  which  there  is  no  escape.  Appropriate  legislation  may 
well  be  devised  to  deal  with  such  a  menace  to  society  and  our 
free  institutions. 

If  nothing  but  the  closed  shop  would  prevent  the  oppres- 
sion and  persecution  of  the  working  class,  it  might  well  be 
contended  that   all   principles   of   liberty  might  better  be  aban- 


THE   CLOSED   SHOP  141 

doned  than  to  permit  such  an  unfortunate  condition  to  become 
established.  Most  people  will  believe,  however,  that  it  is  pos- 
sible for  this  nation  to  preserve  the  traditional  rights  and  lib- 
erties of  its  people  and  at  the  same  time  properly  protect  the 
working  class,  li  labor  organizations  would  adopt  the  meth- 
ods and  policies  of  the  admirable  Brotherhood  of  Locomotive 
Engineers,  they  would  uphold  the  open  shop  and  make  merit 
and  capability  the  qualifications  for  membership,  so  that  em- 
ployers, feeling  that  it  represented  the  best  of  the  craft,  would 
make  generous  concessions  to  it  rather  than  be  obliged  to  de- 
pend exclusively  on  non-union  workers.i  This  is  a  legitimate 
and  unexploited  field  of  union  activity  by  which  it  can  obtain 
fair  play  from  the  employers.  People  also  forget  that  protec- 
tive and  powerful  weapon,  the  strike,  which  has  been  allotted 
to  organized  labor.  The  history  of  civilized  government  af- 
fords no  parallel  whereby  law  permits  a  combination  of  men 
to  enter  into  a  scheme  so  calculated  to  imperil  and  destroy 
property  and  personal  rights.  The  organization  of  a  man's 
factory  is  usually  of  more  value  than  the  machinery  and  brick 
walls.  It  is  the  fruit  of  years  of  expense  and  selection  and 
elimination.  There  is,  moreover,  an  individuality  in  the  meth- 
ods and  products  of  most  manufacturers  to  which  it  takes 
time  for  the  employees  to  adapt  themselves.  The  strike  by 
one  blow  destroys  this  valuable  organization  of  skilled  help, 
turns  the  factory  into  a  kindergarten  and,  for  a  while  at 
least,  paralyzes  the  business  and  prevents  the  further  fulfil- 
ment of  orders.  It  frequently  takes  a  factory  years  to  reach 
the  same  standard  of  excellence  in  its  production  after  strikes 
which  are  never  settled,  and  the  loss  of  customers  that,  during 
the  period  of  suspended  production,  drift  to  competitors,  is 
sometimes  permanent.  The  public,  accustomed  to  the  frequency 
of  strikes,  and  sympathizing  with  the  employees,  often  fails 
to  appreciate  the  power  of  this  weapon,  but  workers  vested 
with  the  legal  right  to  inflict  such  destruction  cannot  well  be 
oppressed.  Tremendous  forces  are  also  in  the  field  to  guard 
against  the  possibility  of  employing  men,  women  and  children 
under  conditions  which  will  produce  an  anaemic  and  deter- 
iorated citizenship  in  the  future.  Philanthropic  men  and  wo- 
men are  studying  and  exposing  industrial  evils.  The  Amer- 
ican Association  for  Labor  Legislation  and  the  National  Child 
Labor  Committee  are  both  powerful  and  well-conducted  move- 
ments   which    are    successfully   securing   the   passage   in   all    in- 


142  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

dustrial  states  of  numerous  laws  for  the  protection  and  wel- 
fare of  the  employed.  In  the  last  year  alone,  they  have  been 
influential  in  securing  the  passage  of  over  one  hundred  laws. 
Employers  themselves  have  become  so  enlightened  that  they 
are  introducing  many  reforms  on  their  own  initiative,  and 
large  employers'  associations  have  all  been  urging  a  bill  as  to 
workingmen's  compensation.  The  conditions  prevailing  in 
many  industries  to-day  are  very  satisfactory,  and  the  crying 
evils  are  limited  to  certain  industries  and  localities  which  will 
be  corrected  in  the  near  future  by  forces  and  movements  much 
more  efficacious  than  the  closed  shop  and  involving  no  such 
sacrifice  of  the  principles  of  liberty.  But  were  this  not  true, 
it  would  be  far  better  for  this  nation  to  embark  on  a  course 
of  paternal  or  socialistic  legislation  in  the  form  of  compulsory 
arbitration  or  direct  legislative  regulation  of  wages,  hours  and 
conditions  of  employment,  than  to  surrender  to  irresponsible 
associations  having  a  record  such  as  labor  unions  now  have, 
the  control  of  the  opportunities  of  securing  employment.  Such 
a  course  would  involve  swift  and  certain  destruction  of  the 
principles  of  democratic  society  and  the  complete  abandon- 
ment of  the  grandest  concept  of  modem  government — that  the 
individual  rights  of  all  citizens  are  constitutionally  protected 
against  even  the  encroachment  of  government  itself.  When 
unions  learn  to  respect  the  rights  of  independent  employers 
and  non-union  workers,  the  temptation  to  boycott,  picket,  dy- 
namite, assault  and  murder  will  pass  away  and  the  demand 
for  the  closed  shop  be  forgotten. 


WHY  THE  OPEN   SHOP  BENEFITS  THE 
COMMUNITY ' 

An  "open  shop"  is  one  wherein  there  is  no  discrimination 
shown  against  either  union  or  non-union  labor  by  either  man- 
agement or  wage  earner. 

I.  The  "open  shop"  promotes  Americanism,  because  it 
guarantees  to  every  workman  the  right  to  a  job,  and  to 
every  employer  the^  right  to  the  natural  flow  of  labor  to 
his   plant. 

1  Reprinted  from  "The  Employers'  Association:  How  Organized  and 
Conducted,"  by  Albert  L.  Wyman,  Secretary  of  the  Employers'  Association 
of  Paterson. 


THE   CLOSED   SHOP  143 

2.  The  "open  shop"  benefits  local  banks,  landlords  and 
tradesmen,  because  local  wage-earners  are  thereby 
enabled  to  work  without  interruption  throughout  the 
year,  increase  their  earning  and  add  to  their  savings. 

3.  The  "open  shop"  increases  production  in  local  mills  20% 
or  more,  which  benefits  wage-earners,  tradesmen,  tax- 
payers  and   local  industries   proportionally. 

4.  The  "open  shop"  fosters  good-will  and  co-operation 
between  local  employers  and  wage-earners  by  permitting 
both  to  deal  directly  with  each  other. 

5.  The  "open  shop"  fosters  respect  for  law  and  order  by 
encouraging  direct  relations  between  employer  and  em- 
ployed, and  thus  defeats  the  policy  of  resorting  to  strikes, 
riots,  destruction  of  property,  the  intimidation,  tnaiming 
and  killing  of  American  citizens  while  exercising  their 
right  to  seek  employment;  and  the  defiance  of  courts, 
police,  militia,  and  even  the  government,  in  order  to 
promote  the  unions'  selfish  ends. 

6.  The  "open  shop"  protects  wage-earners  from  being  forced 
out  on  strike — that  is,  being  compelled  to  endure  idleness, 
debt  and  privation — against  their  will  to  satisfy  a  radical 
minority  and  frequently  without  gaining  any  advantage 
thereby. 

7.  The  "open  shop"  guarantees  to  every  American  citizen 
the  right  of  a  job,  and  to  employment  on  the  job,  without 
subjection  to  coercion,  intimidation,  blacklist  and  boycott. 

8.  The  "open  shop"  benefits  all  wage-earners  because  each 
are  free  to  work  and  earn  to  the  limit  of  their  ability, 
experience   and   proficiency. 

y.  The  "open  shop"  insures  to  every  American  boy  and 
girl  the  right  and  privilege  of  learning  a  useful  trade. 

10.  The  "open  shop"  attracts  new  industries,  which  always 
seek  localities  where  workmen  are  contented,  law-abid- 
ing and  industrious;  the  coming  of  which  reduces  tax- 
ation, increases  opportunity  for  employment  and  adds 
to  the  prosperity  of  the  community. 

11.  The  "open  shop"  protects  American  industries  in  each 
community — where  enforced — against  unwise  practices, 
such  as  abnormally  short  working  hours — restricted  pro- 
duction— limited  apprenticeships — broken  trade  agree- 
ments— and  the  insatiable  demands  of  radical  labor 
leaders. 


144  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

12.  The  "open  shop"  lowers  the  cost  of  living  by  protecting 
the  public  from  a  rising  spiral  of  increased  prices  due  to 
the  constant  forced  raising  of  wage  levels  foisted  upon 
American  industries  by  incessant  strikes. 


THE  SUPREME  COURT  AND  THE  OPEN 
SHOP ' 

The  principles  of  law  enunciated  are  not  new  in  the  Hitch- 
man  case.  They  naturally  and  logically  follow  previous  decisions 
of  the  court,  but  they  are  consoling  and  inspiring  because  they 
show  that  great  tribunal  free  from  vagaries  and  tightly  grip- 
ping and  clearly  and  boldly  annunciating  the  most  fundamental 
principles  of  free  government.  The  decision  is,  however,  at 
this  time  especially  valuable  when  organized  labor  is  acting 
with  extraordinary  audacity,  because  it  points  very  clearly  the 
way  to  a  judicial  remedy,  to  which  many  employers  will  be 
driven  if  the  unions  persist  in  a  demand  for  a  closed  shop 
monopoly  and  the  substitution  of  an  efficient  organization  for 
efficiency  in  the  individual  workman  as  a  means  of  establishing 
and  maintaining  wages. 

The  Hitchman  case  is  a  very  old  one.  It  began  in  1907  by 
an  application  for  a  contemporary  injunction  in  the  district 
court  for  the  Northern  District  of  West  Vii-ginia  by  the  Hitch- 
man  Coal  &  Coke  Company.  This  company  owned  about  5,000 
acres  of  coal  land  and  had  a  daily  output  of  about  1,400  tons. 
Tt  was  the  chief  local  source  of  supply  for  the  locomotives  of 
the  Baltimore  &  Ohio  R.  R.  For  three  years  previous  to  its 
application  for  an  injunction  it  had  operated  under  a  collective 
agreement  with  the  United  Mine  Workers.  On  April  ist,  1907, 
its  men  were  called  on  strike,  without  grievance  or  disagreement 
with  the  Hitchman  Company,  but  because  of  a  disagreement 
between  the  district  union  and  an  association  of  operators  with 
which  the  Hitchman  Company  was  not  connected.  The  local 
union  was  willing  to  remain  at  work  with  the  company,  the 
company  agreeing  to  pay  its  members  whatever  the  new  schedule 
might  be  determined  to  be,  but  the  district  union  would  not 
give  the  local  union  permission  to  remain  at  work.  The  com- 
pany was  unable  to  operate  its  mines  for  some  two  months,  and 

1  James   A.    Emery.     American   Industries.     18:11-12.     January,    1918. 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  145 

suffered  severe  losses,  as  it  had  on  two  previous  occasions,  with 
no  power  to  remedy  the  conditions  since  the  agreement  with 
the  union  was  not  within  its  hands.  In  these  circumstances, 
a  self-appointed  committee  of  the  former  union  employes  called 
on  the  President  of  the  Hitchman  Company,  stated  they  were 
not  receiving  benefits  from  the  union  and  desired  to  return  to 
work  if  terms  could  be  arranged.  The  company  agreed  to  take 
them  back  if  they  would  cease  to  be  members  of  the  union  and 
remain  in  that  status  while  in  the  employ  of  the  company,  the 
company  agreeing  on  the  other  hand  that  it  would  not  enter 
into  an  agreement  with  the  United  Mine  Workers.  Any  man 
would  thus  become  a  member  of  the  union  if  he  so  desired,  but 
must  at  the  same  time  cease  to  be  an  employe  of  the  Hitchman 
Company. 

Under  that  agreement  men  entered  the  employ  of  the  com- 
pany, and  from  January  ist,  1908,  new  men  even  signed  an 
agreement  to  that  effect.  Subsequently  the  United  Mine 
Workers  determined  to  organize  "this  and  other  mines,  and  pro- 
ceeded to  "persuade"  employes  of  the  Hitchman  Company  to 
join  the  union  and  to  remain  in  the  company's  employ  without 
the  company's  knowledge  of  the  fact  until  enough  members 
had  been  obtained  to  cause  a  strike,  which  would  paralyze  the 
company,  and  continue  to  do  so  until  it  operated  its  property 
upon  the  terms  of  the  union.  There  is  much  evidence  of  various 
fraudulent  and  false  statements  made  to  the  men  by  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  union.  The  Supreme  Court  did  not  find  that 
there  was  any  evidence  in  the  record  of  violence  or  intimidation 
of  a  physical  nature. 

In  this  state  of  facts  an  injunction  was  obtained  from  the 
United  States  District  Court  which  restrained  the  United  Mine 
Workers  and  their  officers,  agents  and  confederates  from  con- 
spiring and  confederating  to  unionize  the  Hitchman  mine  with- 
out the  owners'  consent  and  to  do  the  same  by  procuring  a 
breach  of  the  existing  contract  between  the  management  and 
their  employes.  There  were  other  allegations  of  boycotting, 
violence  and  intimidation,  which  are  immaterial  to  the  principle 
of  law  involved,  and  there  were  procedural  errors  imputed  to 
the  lower  court  which  did  no  substantial  harm  and  in  no  way 
modified  the  application  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  the 
decision.  The  hearing  upon  the  temporary  restraining  order 
was  postponed  several  times  by  request  of  the  defendants,  and 
without  conflict.     A  temporary  injunction  was  finally  issued  by 


146  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

Judge  Dayton.  Answers  were  then  filed  by  the  defendants,  the 
injunction  made  permanent  and  a  motion  to  modify  it  refused 
in  an  exhaustive  opinion  by  the  court  (172  Fed.  Rep.  963), 
appeal  from  the  order  seeking  modification  of  the  injunction  was 
refused  (176  Fed.,  549),  and  a  final  decree  granting  a  perpetual 
injunction  to  the  plaintiff  in  substantially  the  terms  of  their 
prayer  was  made  (202  Fed.,  512).  This  action  of  the  lower 
court  was  reversed  by  the  Circuit  Court  of  Appeals,  June  ist, 
1914,  (214  Fed.,  685).  A  writ  of  review  was  granted  by  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  (241  U.  S.,  644),  and  the 
decision  of  last  week  is  upon  this  writ  of  certiorari.  The  opin- 
ion of  the  Supreme  Court,  as  written  by  Mr.  Justice  Pitney,  is 
concurred  in  by  six  of  the  nine  Justices;  Justice  Brandeis 
writes  a  dissenting  opinion  in  which  his  associates,  Clark  and 
Holmes,  concur.  The  opinion  of  the  court  reverses  the  Circuit 
Court  of  Appeals,  modifies  the  injunction  issued  by  the  lower 
court,  by  striking  out  certain  persons  whom  it  is  shown  were  not 
served,  and  eliminating  those  portions  of  the  injunction  running 
against  acts  of  physical  violence  and  picketting,  which,  from 
the  record,  it  finds  were  not  threatened  although  enjoined. 
This,  of  course,  without  prejudice  to  the  right  of  the  plaintiff 
to  secure  an  injunction  against  these  forms  of  interference, 
either  in  a  supplemental  or  an  independent  proceeding,  if  they 
be  established  as  a  fact.  With  these  modifications  the  order 
and   decision    of   Judge    Dayton    are    affirmed. 

The  court  does  not  express  itself  but  prescinds  from  that 
portion  of  Judge  Dayton's  opinion  in  which  he  declared  that 
the  United  Mine  Workers  of  America,  as  it  appeared  to  be 
conducted  at  the  time  of  the  bringing  of  the  suit  and  for  some- 
time previous,  was  itself  a  conspiracy  in  restraint  of  trade,  in 
violation  of  the  common  law  of  the  state  and  of  the  Sherman 
Act.  It  does  hold  squarely  that  the  acts  and  purpose  of  the 
defendants  were  intended  to  procure  a  breach  of  the  existing 
contract  of  service  between  the  Hitchman  Coal  &  Coke  Com- 
pany and  its  non-union  employes,  and  the  combination  presented 
an  unlawful  purpose,  by  unlawful  methods,  to  prevent  the  con- 
tinuance of  relation  which  the  parties  were  entitled  to  enjoy  by 
voluntary  agreement. 

The  decision  fully  recognizes  the  right  of  workingmen  to 
form  labor  organizations  for  legitimate  purposes,  using  legit- 
imate means  to  advance  and  protect  their  own  interests,  as  was 
declared   in   the    famous   case  of   Gompers   v.   Buck's   Stove  & 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  147 

Range  Co.  (221  U.  S.,  418),  but  the  court  points  out  that  the 
right  to  form  and  operate  such  organizations  is  not  an  absolute 
one  but  must  be  exercised  with  reasonable  regard  for  the  equal 
rights  of  others,  that  the  right  to  employ  and  be  employed,  or 
sell  labor,  is  equally  a  right  of  liberty  and  of  property,  protected 
even  against  legislative  trespass  by  Congress  or  the  states, 
through  the  terms  of  the  5th  and  14th  Amendments  of  the 
Constitution;  that  as  in  this  instance  employer  and  employe 
had  voluntarily  entered  into  an  agreement  by  which  the  latter 
had  agreed  not  to  become  a  member  of  the  union  during  the 
terms  of  their  employment,  employer  and  employe  were  entitled 
to  the  protection  of  that  status,  either  party  could  terminate 
the  contractural  status  at  will,  but  it  must  Be  at  their  own  will 
and  not  at  the  will  of  others. 

The  court  clearly  perceives  that  it  was  the  plan  and  intent 
of  the  union  in  this  case  to  destroy,  by  persuasion  and  through 
organization  which  would  cause  a  strike,  when  it  became  strong 
enough,  the  contractural  status  of  the  Hitchman  Company  and 
its  employes.  The  enjoyment  of  that  status,  created  by  volun- 
tary agreement,  was  a  right  of  the  employer,  to  the  protection 
of  which  he  was  entitled.  He  need  not  sacrifice  it  against  the 
power  of  numbers,  in  the  presence  of  which  he  would  be  help- 
less, but  may  stand  upon  his  right  of  appeal  to  the  preventive 
powers  of  a  court  of  equity,  and  it  will  be  the  duty  of  that 
court  to  give  constitutional  protection  to  one  against  the  many. 

The  court  points  out  in  passing  that  the  employer,  in  the 
conditions  described,  is  entitled  to  the  goodwill  of  his  employes, 
just  as  the  merchant  is  entitled  to  the  goodwill  of  customers. 
Neither  customers  nor  employes  are  under  any  obligation  to 
continue  the  relation,  but  while  it  endures  the  malicious  effort  of 
a  third  person  to  destroy  it  is  illegal,  and  when  irremediable, 
may  be  the  subject  of  injunction.  The  right  of  action  against 
third  persons  who  undertake  maliciously  to  procure  a  breach  of 
contract  is  as  old  as  the  common  law,  and  recognized  and 
vindicated  in  the  greatest  variety  of  relations. 

The  court,  moreover,  points  out  that  methods  adopted  to 
unionize  are  not  lawful  merely  because  they  are  peaceable.  A 
combination  to  procure  a  violation  of  the  legal  rights  of  the 
defendant  for  the  purpose  of  doing  him  injury  is  just  as  illegal 
as  physical  violence  or  coercion  through  fear  of  it.  Neither 
will  the  court  find  any  justification  for  the  action  of  the  defend- 


148  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

ants  on  the  ground  that  they  are  competitors  in  trade,  or  by  any 
analogy  thereto. 

From  this  decision,  it  therefore  follows  that  the  employer 
is  equally  free  to  employ  union  or  non-union  men,  or  both,  as 
he  sees  fit,  and  the  status  resulting  from  such  an  agreement 
will  be  protected  against  the  acts  of  malicious  third  persons 
whoever  they  may  be.  This  is  conceded  by  the  minority  opin- 
ion as  well,  since  Justice  Brandeis  admits  that  the  denial  of 
employment,  except  upon  the  condition  of  non-membership  in  a 
union,  like  the  denial  of  labor,  except  upon  membership  in  a 
union,  are  equally  non-coercive  methods  of  effecting  a  legal 
contract  of  labor. 

When  it  is  said  that  the  union  acts  with  malice,  it  is  not 
meant  legally  that  they  act  with  personal  ill-will,  but  it  is  meant 
that  they  are  endeavoring  intentionally  to  inflict  damage  upon 
another,  without  lawful  justification  or  excuse.  In  this  case 
both  their  purpose — to  bring  about  a  strike  at  the  Hitchman 
mine  in  order  to  compel  its  unionization  through  fear  of  serious 
financial  loss— was  unlawful  and  malicious,  and  the  method 
adopted  by  the  agents  of  the  union  to  accomplish  this  object  was 
unlawful  because  it  was  an  endeavor  to  procure  concerted 
breaches  of  existing  contracts  of  employment  known  to  be  in 
force,  and,  further,  the  attitude  of  mind  of  the  union  and  its 
agents  was  shown  by  their  misrepresentations  to  the  men  includ- 
ing deceptions   and   threats   of   money   loss. 

In  other  words,  the  experience  of  the  company  explained 
and  justified  the  character  of  its  relations  with  its  employes. 
It  had,  within  as  many  years,  suffered  three  costly  strikes 
while  the  mine  operated  on  a  union  basis.  It,  therefore,  upon 
the  suggestion  of  its  former  union  employes,  had  a  voluntary 
agreement  with  them,  and  undertook  to  create  a  condition  in 
which  its  production  would  no  longer  be  exposed  to  arbitrary 
and  costly  interruption.  The  men  plainly  sought  the  agreement 
and  entered  into  it  because  they  desired  to  be  insured  of  con- 
tinuous and  remunerative  employment.  The  condition  resulting 
from  this  common  experience  of  workers  and  management 
deserved  and  secured  the  protection  of  the  law  from  the  very 
combination  which  had  disrupted  the  relations  between  the 
Hitchman  Company  and  its  employes. 

It  should  be  noted  that  simultaneously  with  the  above  decision 
the  court,  with  like  dissent,  disposed  of  the  case  of  Eagle  Glass 
&  Mfg.  Co.  V.  Rowe,  et  al,  upon  the  same  principle.     The  com- 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  149 

pany,  in  this  case,  operated  a  glass  plant,  non-union,  under 
individual  agreements  with  its  employes,  identical  with  those 
presented  in  the  Hitchman  case.  The  defendant  union 
was  the  American  Flint  Glass  Workers.  Certain  jurisdictional 
questions  of  a  technical  nature  are  involved  but  the  principles  of 
substantive  law  are  the  same  as  those  in  the  Hitchman  case, 
which  are  reiterated  and  reaffirmed. 


CLOSED  SHOP  UNIONISM ' 

Definition  and  Extent 

A  union  is  an  association  of  workmen  usually  of  the  same 
trade  or  craft.  The  contracts  entered  into  between  the  union 
and  the  employer  for  the  regulation  of  wages  and  hours  and 
other  conditions  of  labor  are  called  trade  agreements.  When 
a  trade  agreement  contains  a  provision  giving  to  the  members 
of  the  particular  union  which  is  party  to  it  exclusive  employ- 
ment upon  the  work  of  'the  employer,  a  "closed-shop"  contract 
results.  The  "shop"  or  business  of  the  employer  is  closed  to 
non-members  of  the  union.  The  same  condition,  of  course, 
results  when,  through  tacit  acquiescence  or  implied  agreement, 
the  employer  follows  the  policy  of  exclusively  employing  union 
men  and  of  barring  non-union  men  in  his  work. 

With  a  few  exceptions,  notably  the  Brotherhood  of  Locomo- 
tive Engineers,  the  unions  of  this  country  use  every  effort  to 
secure  the  closed  shop  agreement  and  absolutely  insist  upon  it 
where  they  feel  themselves  strong  enough.  It  is  not  too  much  to 
say  that  the  securing  of  a  universal  closed  shop  in  favor  of  the 
unions  which  constitute  its  membership  is  the  dominant  motive 
to-day  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  which  represents 
substantially  all  the  unions  of  the  country  outside  of  the  railway 
brotherhoods.  Taking  the  statistics  of  the  Federation's  officers 
as  to  the  number  of  men  represented  by  its  different  constituent 
members,  about  seven  per  cent,  of  the  working  men  of  the 
country  are  under  the  jurisdiction  of  this  organization.  The 
effort  to  secure  the  closed  shop  has  been  successful  to  the  extent 
that  many  national  industries  and  the  building  industry  in  many 
of  our  great  cities  and  in  numberless  smaller  ones  are  now 
governed   by   closed   shop   agreements. 

*  Pamphlet  by  Walter  Drew,  Counsel  for  National  Erectors'  Association. 


ISO  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

It  is  impossible  in  a  single  article  to  fully  cover  the  closed 
shop  in  its  relations  to  our  modern  civilization.  It  can  be 
studied  from  many  view  points, — economic,  legal,  political  and 
social,  from  the  standpoint  of  the  individual  and  from  the 
standpoint  of  the  community.  The  most  that  can  be  hoped  for 
is  to  find  out  what  it  actually  is  in  its  fundamental  motives 
and  purposes,  and  then  perhaps  merely  suggest  some  of  the 
phases  of  its  larger  relations  in  our  national  life. 

Coercion  Necessary  to  Closed  Shop 

One  fundamental  economic  fact  concerning  the  closed  shop, 
when  fully  comprehended,  will  serve  to  make  clear  many  of  the 
other  familiar  phenomena  incidental  to  it.  And  that  fact  which 
should  be  thoroughly  driven  home  is  this, — force  and  coercion 
are  absolutely  essential  to  the  establishment  and  maintenance 
of  the  closed  shop  and  will  always  be  its  most  prominent  char- 
acteristic so  long  as  it  continues  to  be  an  industrial  institution. 
The  reason  is  very  plain.  The  closed  shop,  of  course,  econom- 
ically speaking,  is  a  monopoly  in  favor  of  the  particular  mem- 
bers of  the  union  which  is  a  party  to  the  closed  shop  agree- 
ment. This  monopoly,  however,  is  not  real,  but  artificial  and 
arbitrary.  It  lacks  the  chief  feature  of  a  real  monopoly,  which 
is  the  control  of  all  the  available  supply  of  the  commodity.  The 
union,  as  we  have  seen,  represents  only  a  very  small  percentage 
of  the  mass  of  labor.  Therefore,  outside  its  ranks  there  is  a 
large  supply  of  labor  seeking  employment,  and  it  can  maintain 
its  monopoly  only  by  preventing  this  potential  supply  from 
reaching  its  natural  market  and  coming  in  contact  with  the 
correlative  demand  of  the  employer.  The  union,  as  we  shall 
see,  offers  the  employer  no  special  inducement  in  the  way  of 
greater  skill  or  efficiency  to  lead  him  to  prefer  its  members 
over  the  outsider.  Time  was  when  the  comparative  security 
offered  by  trade  agreements  for  a  limited  time  gave  the  employer 
some  incentive  to  give  preference  to  union  men,  but  this  reason 
also  is  of  little  present  importance.  It  comes  finally  down  to 
the  fact  that  the  union,  through  its  organization  and  by  such 
means  as  it  can  use,  is  face  to  face  with  the  problem  of  pre- 
venting the  employment  of  outside  workers  in  the  market  which 
it  seeks  to  control.  This  prevention  is  accomplished  in  one 
way,  and  in  one  way  only — the  use  of  force  and  coercion  in 
some  form  or  another,  either  to  keep  the  outsider  from  accepting 
employment,  or  to  keep  the  employer  from  accepting  his  serv- 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  151 

ices.  So,  to  repeat,  and  it  is  worthy  to  be  repeated  and  to  be 
remembered  in  connection  with  every  form  which  the  discussion 
of  the  closed  shop  may  take  in  its  different  aspects,  the  estab- 
lishment and  maintenance  of  the  artificial  monopoly  of  the 
closed  shop  involve  as  an  inevitable,  economic  necessity  the 
constant  checking  and  thwarting  of  the  ordinary  working  of 
the  law  of  supply  and  demand,  and  a  consequent  use  of  force 
and  coercion. 

Its  Forms 

The  reader  has  some  idea  already  as  to  the  forms  which 
this  force  assumes.  In  its  cruder  aspects,  it  is  force  direct, 
physical,  violent.  Men  seeking  to  bring  their  labor  to  a  market 
which  a  union  desires  for  its  own  are  threatened,  assaulted 
and  sometimes  killed.  This  violence  is  one  of  the  common 
features  of  all  our  great  strikes,  and,  of  course,  the  more  in 
evidence  as  the  character  of  the  men  involved  goes  downward 
in  the  scale.  But  often  and  much  more  effectively  the  force 
used  is  of  a  more  subtle  kind,  and  is  brought  to  bear  not  upon 
the  outside  worker  to  keep  him  from  accepting  employment,  but 
upon  the  employer  to  compel  him  to  refrain  from  accepting  the 
services  of  the  outsider.  Some  of  the  means  employed  are  the 
boycott  of  innocent  third  parties  to  keep  them  from  dealing 
with  the  particular  employer  from  whom  it  is  desired  to  secure 
a  closed  shop  agreement,  and  the  sympathetic  strike,  which 
means  that  other  unions  lend  their  aid  to  the  particular  union 
engaged  in  the  controversy  by  going  on  strike  against  the  em- 
ployer. In  these  ways  it  often  happens  that  the  employer  not 
only  finds  himself  unable  to  secure  the  raw  material  for  his 
work,  but  also  customers  for  his  product,  and  finally  yields  to 
the  demand  of  a  few  men  for  exclusive  employment  and  forgoes 
his  right  to  avail  himself  of  the  large  outside  supply  of  labor 
we  have  noted. 

Closed  Shop  Not  Representative — Hostile  to  Outside   Workers 

Another  general  economic  consideration  and  one  that  may 
be  at  variance  with  previous  impressions  of  the  reader  is  that 
the  closed  shop  union,  instead  of  being  representative  of  the 
great  mass  of  labor  and  the  champion  of  labor  as  a  whole,  is, 
on  the  contrary,  absolutely  hostile  to  the  outside  worker.  This 
follows  naturally  from  what  we  have  just  noted.  The  union  in  its 
closed  shop,  dependent  upon  restricting  the  employment  of  labor 


152  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

to  its  own  members  and  threatened  with  the  competition  of 
non-members,  bears  about  the  same  relation  to  the  non-member, 
so  far  as  loving  him  and  representing  his  interests  is  concerned, 
as  the  Standard  Oil  Company  bears  to  an  independent  refiner. 
The  unions,  of  course,  in  public  insist  that  their  cause  is  the 
cause  of  labor  in  general  and  that  they  are  willing  to  share 
their  benefits  with  all  workers.  In  actual  practice,  however, 
something  quite  different  occurs.  In  New  York  and  in  several 
of  the  other  large  cities,  it  is  stated  on  good  authority  that  the 
books  of  several  of  the  building  trades  unions  are  absolutely 
closed  to  new  members,  thus  restricting  the  monopoly  to  the 
present  membership.  In  San  Francisco  after  the  great  earth- 
quake, when  a  sudden  demand  was  created  for  the  services  of 
many  more  thousands  of  workers  in  the  building  trades  to 
engage  in  the  work  of  re-building  the  city,  the  unions  adopted 
the  policy  of  prohibiting  the  entrance  of  outside  labor,  even 
barring  members  of  their  own  unions  from  other  cities.  In  this 
way  the  wages  of  the  local  union  men  who  had  the  monopoly 
were  doubled  and  even  trebled  in  many  cases.  The  ratio  of 
increase  in  the  power  of  the  union  under  the  closed  shop  cor- 
responds exactly  with  the  ratio  of  decrease  in  the  number  of 
apprentices  which  it  allows  under  its  rules  to  learn  a  trade.  In 
many  of  the  building  trades  in  the  great  cities,  only  one  appren- 
tice to  every  ten  journeymen  is  permitted.  This,  of  course, 
limits  the  number  of  those  entering  the  combination  to  a  point 
where  it  does  not  over-balance  the  number  dropping  out,  and 
thus  .keeps  the  supply  of  labor  which  the  monopoly  represents 
down  to  a  proper  scarcity.  How  then  can  the  union,  entrenched 
in  its  closed  shop,  holding  back  the  great  mass  of  outside  labor 
from  employment  by  the  strong  arm  and  restricting  its  market 
to  a  greater  and  greater  degree,  be  considered  in  any  sense  as 
representative  of  the  laboring  classes  as  a  whole? 

The  Labor  Boss — His  Power  and  Graft 

Coming  from  the  broad  and  general  view  to  one  nearer  at 
hand,  of  the  actual  workings  of  the  closed  shop  as  an  industrial 
factor,  the  first  observation  is  that  it  puts  industry, — the  direc- 
tion and  control  of  the  factors  of  production, — largely  into  the 
hands  of  the  union  boss.  The  union  is  a  voluntary  association 
controlled  by  the  will  of  the  majority  and  its  leaders  or  bosses 
are  those  who  are  able  to  secure  the  votes, — that  is,  they  are 
men  who  have  the  political  gift  and  are  not  recessarily,  but  only 


THE   CLOSED   SHOP  153 

accidentally,  men  who  have  any  knowledge  of  business  or  any 
experience  or  training  in  the  handling  of  the  forces  of  produc- 
tion.    The  motive  of  the  boss  is  to  maintain  his  position  and 
to  advance  the  interests  of  his  union  as  he  sees  it,  and  he  is  not 
troubled    with    any    economic    theories    or    any   broad   view   of 
the  industrial  situation,  or  any  great  amount  of  interest  as  to 
the    industrial    future.     Labor    is    absolutely   essential    in    every 
business.    Invested  capital  in  the  form  of  tools,  machinery,  raw 
material  and  buildings  is  absolutely  valueless  without  the  added 
increment  of  labor.    The  union  boss,  then,  entrenched  behind  the 
closed  shop  monopoly  of  his  union,  is  in  a  position  to  exert  a 
powerful  and  dominating  influence  in  the  direction  and  control 
of  the  business,  and  this  control  has  long  since  in  many  trades 
gone   beyond   the   mere   matters   relating   to   the   conditions    of 
labor   and    extended   to   the    larger   affairs    of   business   policy. 
From  this  power  and  control  of   the   union   boss,   since  he  is 
only  human,   follows  another   sinister   fact— graft.     The  chari- 
table-minded average  citizen  often  thinks  that  graft  in   union 
circles   is   a   mere   accidental   circumstance   restricted  to   a   few 
dishonest   men.     Of   course,    there    are    union   bosses   who   are 
honest,  as  there  are  men  in  every  human  institution  that  are 
honest,  but  the  point  is  that  the  natural  tendency  of  the  closed 
shop  is  to  produce  the  grafter  and  that  men  of  that  Stamp  are 
the  one  who  most  eagerly  seek  this  position  of  industrial  power 
for  the  opportunity  it  offers.    Nor  is  the  graft  item  a  small  tool 
upon  industry.    In  one  case  alone  where  the  facts  became  public, 
it   was    shown   in   the   sworn   testimony  of   two   different   trials 
that  Shea  of  the  Teamsters'  Union  received  the  sum  of  $1,500 
from  the  garment  workers'  union  to  call  a  teamsters'  strike  on 
Montgomery,    Ward    and    Company,    of    Chicago.      This    strike 
cost    the    parties    directly    interested,    according    to    the    leading 
Chicago  papers,  $2,000,000,  and  it  cost  the  business  interests  of 
Chicago  indirectly  between  $25,000,000  and   $30,000,000.     Sheas' 
two   trials    cost   the    County   of    Cook   in   the    neighborhood    of 
$100,000,  and,  of  course,  somebody  had  to  pay  all  these  bills,  and 
somebody  means  the  general  public. 

Jurisdictional  Dispute — Sympathetic  Strike 

The  desire  to  secure  the  spoils  of  monopoly  represented  by 
the  closed  shop  leads  to  two  other  features  of  the  system 
which  at  first  seem  paradoxical  and  which  are  becoming  more 
and   more   common.     The   different   unions   have    reached   the 


154  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

point  of  quarreling  among  themselves  as  to  the  control  over 
certain  kinds  of  work,  but  at  the  same  time  are  adopting  more 
and  more  the  policy  of  joining  their  forces  and  working  together 
to  maintain  and  extend  their  common  jurisdiction.  In  the 
building  trades  especially,  the  dividing  line  between  the  work 
in  different  trades  is  often  very  indistinct.  Shall  reinforced 
concrete  be  handled  by  the  iron  worker  because  it  contains 
steel  rods,  or  by  the  concrete  worker  or  the  bricklayer  because 
it  is  composed  largely  of  concrete?  Questions  of  this  nature 
arise  between  the  plumber  and  the  steam  fitter,  the  boiler 
worker  and  the  iron  worker,  the  concrete  mixer  and  the  brick- 
layer, and  so  on.  The  interest  of  the  owner  in  these  disputes 
is  entirely  ignored,  and  his  work  becomes  a  mere  pawn  on  the 
board  of  contention  between  the  hostile  unions.  One  notable 
example  comes  to  ihind.  A  compressed  air  cleaning  apparatus 
was  part  of  the  plans  for  the  new  Marshall'  Field  Company's 
building  in  Chicago.  Both  the  plumbers  and  steam  fitters 
claimed  the  work  of  installing  it.  Each  was  backed  up  by 
several  sympathetic  unions.  Each  union  with  its  following 
threatened  to  strike  if  the  work  was  given  to  the  other.  The 
company  decided  to  do  without  the  apparatus  entirely,  where- 
upon both  contending  factions  united  in  demanding  that  it  be 
installed  or  they  would  all  strike.  The  result  was  that  the 
entire  work  on  the  building  was  delayed  in  the  neighborhood 
of  six  weeks  while  the  building  trades  council  of  Chicago 
arbitrated  the  dispute  between  the  plumbers  and  the  steam 
fitters'  unions.  The  Marshall  Field  Company,  after  the  decision 
was  rendered,  was  instructed  to  proceed  with  the  work  in 
accordance  with  the  terms  of  the  decision,  although  it  had  no 
representation  nor  voice  in  any  way  in  the  entire  proceeding. 
Here  in  one  instance  is  an  example  of  both  the  tendencies  noted. 
The  sympathetic  strike  is  becoming  very  common,  and  it  is 
significant  to  note  that,  in  the  great  majority  of  cases,  unions 
which  have  no  grievance  against  the  employer  will  go  on  strike 
agamst  him  to  help  some  other  union  secure  a  closed  shop 
agreement,  when  they  would  not  interfere  at  all  if  only  the 
question  of  wages  or  hours  was  involved. 

Breach  of  Trade  Agreements 

The  only  excuse  from  the  employer's  point  of  view  for  giving 
to  a  union  a  mongpoly  in  his  work  is  to  secure  a  trade  agree- 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  155 

ment,  containing  certain  covenants  of  conditions  under  which 
he  is  entitled  for  a  certain  definite  period  of  time  to  the  services 
of  the  members  of  the  union  upon  certain  definite  terms.  The 
sense  of  power  coming  from  the  long  possession  of  a  monopoly 
in  the  work,  coupled  with  a  total  disregard  of  the  interests  of 
the  employer  as  shown  in  the  jurisdiction  dispute  and  the  sym- 
pathetic strike,  often  lead  naturally  to  a  refusal  by  the  union 
to  be  bound  even  by  its  agreements.  This  is  especially  true 
where  the  question  of  the  closed  shop  is  involved,  for  the  reason 
that  the  union  seems  to  believe  the  closed  shop  essential  to  its 
existence.  In  August,  1907,  there  met  in  the  city  of  Washington 
a  convention,  composed  of  the  national  and  international  offi- 
cers of  all  the  building  trades  unions  in  the  country  for  the 
purpose  of  considering  ways  and  means  of  making  the  capital 
city  a  complete  closed  shop  town,  the  wall  hitherto  maintained 
against  non-union  labor  having  been  partially  disrupted  by  the 
employment  of  non-union  plumbers  by  some  of  the  local  em- 
ployers. This  convention,  composed  not  of  the  local  leaders, 
subject  to  local  passions  and  prejudices  and  of  lesser  wisdom, 
but  of  men  who  constituted  the  court  of  last  resort  in  union 
matters,  called  a  general  building  trades  strike  in  the  city  of 
Washington,  not  on  account  of  any  question  of  wages  or  hours, 
but  for  the  sole  purpose  of  compelling  the  discharge  of  all  non- 
union workmen,  in  that  city.  This  strike  was  in  violation  of 
trade  agreements  in  numbers  of  the  different  trades,  and  when 
the  attention  of  one  of  these  national  labor  leaders  was  called 
to  this  fact,  he  replied,  "When  it  becomes  a  question  of  the  open 
or  closed  shop,  to  H — 1  with  trade  agreements." 

Decreased  Efficiency  of  Men — Reasons 

Other  general  economic  features  of  the  system  could  be 
noted,  but  space  prevents  the  mention  of  but  one  more  and  that 
the  most  vital,  important  and  sinister  of  all,  the  decreased  effi- 
ciency of  the  union  man.  The  fact  is  too  well  settled  to  permit 
of  argument.  Bricklayers,  for  instance,  in  a  closed  shop  will 
lay  on  an  average  eight  hundred  to  one  thousand  bricks  per  day, 
t  when  a  fair  day's  work  of  eight  hours,  and  one  which  was 
common  a  few  years  ago,  would  be  three  thousand  and  more 
brick.  The  structural  iron  worker,  when  he  had  his  closed  shop, 
would  drive  from  seventy-five  to  one  hundred  rivets  per  day. 
In  an  open  shop  at  the  present  time  in  New  York  and  other 


156  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

cities,  the  output  runs  from  two  hundred  to  four  hundred  rivets 
per  day.  A  carpenter  before  he  had  a  monopoly  would  hang  a 
door  an  hour;  now,  in  his  closed  shop,  he  considers  four  doors 
a  good  day's  work.  President  Mellen,  of  the  New  York  Central, 
in  a  recent  report,  stated  that  with  every  increase  in  wages  to 
the  union  employees  of  the  road  there  was  a  corresponding  de- 
crease in  efficiency. 

These  things  are  not  hard  to  understand.  The  wage  scale 
by  which  the  good  man  and  the  poor  receive  the  same  wage 
takes  away  the  incentive  of  the  good  man.  Why  should  he  do 
any  more  or  better  work  than  his  fellow,  when  they  receive 
the  same  wage?  The  good  man,  also,  is  often  kept  from  con- 
scientious work  by  the  union  doctrine  that  he  must  not  set  too 
fast  a  pace  for  his  less-skilled  fellow,  who  otherwise  might  lose 
his  job,  if  the  comparison  were  too  much  to  his  discredit.  This 
applies  not  only  to  his  less-skilled  fellow  union  men,  but  also 
to  the  shiftless  and  the  lazy,  who  because  of  service  in  union 
political  matters  have  been  rewarded  with  a  job  in  which  the 
union  boss  desires  to  see  them  retained.  The  practice  of  making 
work  is  also  common.  That  is,  in  dull  times,  if  a  piece  of  work 
could  be  very  well  performed  by  ten  men  in  a  given  time,  each 
man  employed  so  decreases  his  efforts  as  to  make  it  necessary 
to  employ  twelve  or  fifteen  men  in  order  that  employment  may 
be  given  to  more  of  the  members  of  the  union.  The  teaching 
of  labor  leaders  to  the  effect  that  labor  produces  all  wealth, 
that  there  is  an  inevitable  conflict  between  capital  and  labor, 
and  that  unions  are  organized  for  the  purpose  of  getting  as 
much  as  possible  and  giving  in  return  as  little  as  possible,  all 
serve  to  deaden  the  conscience  and  decrease  the  effort  of  the 
union  man.  The  natural  result  of  this  combination  of  causes, 
added  to  the  ever-present  fact,  of  course,  that  the  union  man. 
in  the  closed  shop  is  not  subject  to  discharge,  as  would  be  a 
non-unionman,  but  has  back  of  him  the  entire  strength  of  the 
monopoly  to  vouchsafe  him  his  job,  results  in  reducing  the 
efficiency  of  the  men  to  a  point  where  that  of  the  shiftless,  the 
lazy  and  the  least  skilled  becomes  the  common  measure  of  the 
efficiency  of  all.  The  question  of  high  wages,  then,  is  not  the 
most  important  in  reaching  the  final  wage  cost ;  and  when, 
coupled  with  high  wages,  there  is  a  decrease  in  the  output  of  the 
worker  fifty  per  cent,  or  more,  the  fit\al  figures  reflected  in  the 
cost   of   production   become   startling. 


THE  CLOSED   SHOP  157 

Closed  Shop — Cost  of  Production — Prices 

As  a  partial  summing  up,  pile  up  on  top  of  this  abnormal 
wage  cost  the  toll  of  graft;  the  losses  occasioned  by  jurisdic- 
tional disputes,  sympathetic  strikes  and  strikes  waged  to  estab- 
lish the  closed  shop  and  involving  no  question  of  wages  or 
hours;  the  general  and  more  indefinite  loss  to  industry  through 
the  disorganizing  of  the  productive  factors  due  to  the  domina- 
tion of  the  union  boss  and  the  arbitrary  restrictions  and  limita- 
tions insisted  upon — and  some  idea  may  be  gained  of  what  the 
closed  shop  means  in  its  relation  to  the  cost  of  production.  The 
final  consumer  must  pay  for  all  these  items,  unreasonable,  abnor- 
mal, illegitimate  and  uneconomic  as  they  may  be.  One  partial 
offset  to  this  is  the  fact  that  high  wages  are  paid  to  the  few 
men  having  the  monopoly,  thus  increasing  their  purchasing 
power  and  creating  to  some  extent  a  market  for  goods  at  the 
higher  prices;  but  this  is  a  very  small  item  of  benefit,  for  the 
reason  that  the  number  of  men  receiving  the  higher  wages  is  so 
few  in  comparison  with  the  numbers  of  the  great  purchasing 
public  that  the  wages  paid  them  can  have  very  little  appreciable 
influence  in  creating  a  general  market.  The  final  result  then, 
is  that  the  general  public  pays  abnormal  and  uneconomic  prices 
for  many  products  with  no  corresponding  element  of  benefit. 

Closed  Shop  An  Oligarchy 

Socially,  the  closed  shop  is  an  oligarchy.  VYe  have  noted 
that  economically  it  does  not  represent  the  great  mass  of  wage 
earners,  but  that,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  hostile  to  them.  Its 
tendency  therefore  is  to  develop  a  class  feeling  as  among  work- 
men themselves.  A  man  inside  the  union,  receiving  monopoly 
wages  and  secure  in  his  job,  is  a  privileged  person,  and  the  out- 
sider is  to  him  not  only  a  possible  competitor,  but  a  less  fortu- 
nate individual,  lower  in  the  human  scale.  The  closed  shop  union, 
being  a  trust  economically,  naturally  develops  into  an  oligarchy 
socially. 

Effect  on  Character 

The  effect  upon  the  member  of  the  union  in  his  individual 
aspect,  however,  is  more  important.  One  of  the  strongest  forces 
for  the  upbuilding  of  character  is  the  joy  of  work  and  the  pride 
in  achievement.     The  union  man,  whose  incentive  in   his  work 


158  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

has  been  taken  away  from  him  and  whose  efforts  have  come  to 
be  measured  by  those  of  his  incompetent  and  idle  fellow,  has 
lost  this  moral  uplift.  He  tends  to  deteriorate,  not  only  as  a 
productive  factor,  but  as  a  man.  No  man  can  continue  day 
after  day,  and  week  after  week,  to  receive  the  highest  of  wages 
and  to  render  in  return  therefor  less  than  his  best  endeavor 
without  an  inevitable  loss  in  character.  The  act  in  its  essence 
is  dishonest,  and  in  his  inner  conscience  the  man  knows  it  is 
dishonest,  no  matter  what  heed  he  may  give  to  the  specious 
reasoning  of  his  union  leaders. 

The  Closed  Shop  and  the  Law 

The  legal  aspects  and  phases  of  closed  shop  unionism  and 
its  political  activity  are  closely  related,  and  both  of  them  follow 
naturally  from  the  use  of  force  and  coercion  we  have  noted  as 
necessary  to  maintain  the  union  in  its  monopoly.  The  union, 
legally  speaking,  is  a  combination,  and  combinations  are  gov- 
erned by  the  laws  of  conspiracy.  The  whole  law  of  conspiracy 
is  summed  up  in  the  definition  of  what  a  conspiracy  is — a  com- 
bination having  an  unlawful  purpose,  or  using  unlawful  means. 
The  law  recognizes  that  a  combination  of  men  is  much  more 
potent  for  evil  than  is  one  man,  and  some  limitations  are  put 
upon  the  ^cts  of  combinations  which  do  not  apply  to  individuals. 
The  law  says  that  a  combination  of  men  has  no  right  to  inflict 
injury  maliciously  upon  others,  whether  the  combination  be 
one  of  manufacturers,  real  estate  dealers,  working  men,  or  any 
other  class  of  citizens.  In  a  late  and  leading  case  in  the  House 
of  Lords,  Lord  Lindley  said,  "My  Lords,  it  is  said  that  conduct 
which  is  not  actionable  on  the  part  of  one  person  cannot  be 
actionable  if  it  is  that  of  several  acting  in  concert.  This  may 
be  so  where  many  do  no  more  than  one  is  supposed  to  do,  but 
numbers  may  annoy  and  coerce  where  one  may  not.  Annoy- 
ance and  coercion  by  many  may  be  so  intolerable  as  to  become 
actionable  and  produce  a  result  which  one  alone  could  not 
produce."  Said  Judge  Taft,  speaking  of  a  combination  of 
workmen,  "Such  combinations  are  said  to  be  unlawful  conspir- 
acies, though  the  acts  in  themselves  and  considered  singly  are 
innocent,  when  the  acts  are  done  with  malice,  that  is,  with  the 
intention  to  injure  another  without  lawful  excuse."  Said  Mr. 
Justice  Holmes,  when  on  the  Supreme  Bench  in  Massachusetts, 
and  in  a  case  involving  a  labor  union,  "I  agree,  whatever  may 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  159 

be  the  law  in  the  case  of  a  single  defendant,  that  when  a 
plaintiff  proves  that  several  persons  have  combined  and  con- 
spired to  injure  his  business,  and  have  done  acts  producing  that 
effect,  he  shows  temporal  damage  and  a  cause  of  action,  unless 
the  facts  disclose  or  the  defendants  prove  some  ground  of  excuse 
or  justification." 

On  this  broad  basis  the  courts  have  prohibited  manufacturers, 
wholesale  dealers,  newspaper  men  as  well  as  labor  unions  from 
carrying  out  combinations  for  the  purpose  of  injuring  others. 
The  black  list  and  the  boycott  have  been  condemned.  There 
is  no.  single  principle  of  the  law  of  conspiracy  that  has  not  been 
applied  to  combinations  of  employers  as  well  as  to  labor  unions, 
and  in  many  cases  the  appHcation  was  first  made  to  combina- 
tions of  employers. 

Efforts  to   Change  Law 

It  can  at  once  be  seen,  however,  that  labor  leaders  in  the 
endeavor  to  establish  and  maintain  the  closed  shop,  with  the 
inevitable  use  of  force  and  coercion  incident  to  their  efforts, 
would  find  a  serious  stumbling-block  in  the  law.  Their  com- 
bined attempt  to  prevent  outside  labor  from  seeking  employ- 
ment by  means  of  intimidation  and  violence  was  declared  unlaw- 
ful and  enjoined.  The  boycott  against  the  employer  and  against 
innocent  third  parties  as  well,  in  order  to  so  cripple  his  business 
as  to  compel  him  to  accede  to  their  demands,  was  declared  un- 
lawful and  enjoined.  And  here  the  political  activity  of  organized 
labor  began.  The  claim  was  made  that  the  law  discriminated 
against  the  union,  that  the  judges  administered  the  law  in  a 
prejudiced  and  partisan  manner,  and  that  our  courts  were  being 
used  for  the  purpose  of  denjdng  to  labor  ordinary  and  funda- 
mental rights.  These  claims  have  been  made  so  persistently  and 
so  long  that  many  people  believe  there  must  be  some  reason 
for  them.  Under  their  cover,  laws  are  being  demanded  of 
Congress  and  of  different  State  Legislatures,  which  would 
change  the  old  common  law  of  conspiracy  so  far  as  it  applies 
to  organized  labor,  and  which  would  give  to  it  special  license 
and  immunities  in  carrying  on  its  coercive  campaigns.  Anything 
short  of  actual  crime  that  a  labor  organization  saw  fit  to  do  in 
the  way  of  using  its  combination  to  injure  others  and  to 
compel  concession  to  its  demands  would  be  legalized  by  the 
laws  proposed. 


i6o  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

Closed  Shop  Not  Necessary   to  Unionism 

There  would  seem  to  be  nothing  desirable  about  the  closed 
shop  as  a  fixed  institution  in  our  national  life— in  fact,  its 
every  influence  appears  upon  analysis  to  be  decidedly  detrimental 
to  industrial  and  social  progress.  What  is  its  justification? 
Upon  what  economic,  plausible  foundation  does  it  rest?  The 
only  excuse  that  is  ever  given  is  that  the  closed  shop  is  abso- 
lutely necessary  to  the  development  of  the  principles  of  unionism. 
In  other  words,  unions  must  have  a  monopoly,  or  they  cannot 
exist  and  flourish.  The  facts  do  not  justify  this  contention. 
The  most  powerful  and  successful  union  in  this  country,  the 
Brotherhood  of  Locomotive  Engineers,  is  and  always  has'  been 
an  open  shop  organization.  It  has  never  presumed  to  insist 
upon  exclusive  employment  of  its  members.  The  unions  of 
England,  which  are  far  in  advance  of  those  in  this  country 
in  organization  and  influence,  are  all  upon  the  open  shop  basis. 
The  closed  shop  is  a  peculiarly  American  institution. 

But  to  go  further  into  the  reason  of  the  matter  The  union 
seeking  a  trade  agreement  from  the  employer,  and  in  the  absence 
of  the  use  of  force  or  coercion,  must  give  him  some  induce- 
ment to  grant  the  terms  asked.  This  inducement  naturally 
would  consist  in  some  form  of  benefit  to  the  employer  in  the 
way  of  greater  efficiency  and  productive  capacity  on  the  part  of 
the  members  of  the  union,  or  in  the  security  offered  for  a 
certain  period  by  having  certain  definite  terms  agreed  upon 
from  which  wage  cost  could  be  readily  calculated.  Any  em- 
ployer would  be  not  only  willing  but  anxious  to  enter  into  agree- 
ment with  a  union  whose  members,  on  account  of  greater  skill 
and  competency  and  through  a  spirit  of  co-operation  and  a 
desire  to  achieve  the  very  highest  productive  capacity,  would 
work  in  harmony  with  him  to  produce  the  best  possible  returns 
from  his  capital  and  their  labor.  It  is  an  economic  fact  that 
increased  utility  on  the  part  of  the  worker  tends  to  an  increase 
in  his  wages,  for  the  simple  reason  that  he  is  worth  more.  In- 
creased utility  on  the  part  of  workers  generally  in  any  business 
would  result  immediately  in  a  corresponding  increase  in  the 
product,  which  means  that  the  employer  would  be  in  a  position, 
through  this  one  fact  alone,  to  pay  higher  wages  to  those  respon- 
sible for  the  increase.  Conversely,  the  decreasing  efficiency  of 
the  men  resulting  in  a  constantly  decreasing  product  makes  it 
correspondingly  more  difficult   iror  the  employer  to   sustain   the 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  l6l 

rate  of  wages.  A  union,  adopting  the  ideals  of  increased  effi- 
ciency and  the  sanctity  of  trade  agreements  and  of  a  spirit  of 
co-operation  with  the  employer  to  attain  the  highest  possible 
productive  capacity  of  the  business  and  whose  members  were 
chosen  and  instructed  with  a  view  to  these  ideals,  would  have 
no  trouble  in  making  satisfactory  trade  agreements  at  fair 
wages  and  would  need  to  have  no  fear  of  the  competition  of 
outside  workmen. 

An  Evil  to   Union  Man  Himself 

The  process  would  not  stop  here.  An  increase  of  product, 
resulting  from  the  increased  utility  of  the  workers,  would 
require  a  greater  amount  of  material  and  machinery.  This 
means  that  other  industries  would  be  called  upon  for  this  mate- 
rial and  machinery  and  that  a  new  demand  for  labor  in  those 
industries  would  be  created,  with  a  corresponding  tendency  to 
increase  wages.  The  lessening  of  the  cost  of  production,  coupled 
with  an  increased  product,  would  tend  to  lower  prices.  The 
worker,  therefore,  in  return  for  his  increased  utility  would 
not  only  receive  higher  money  wages,  but  his  cost  of  living 
would  be  reduced  by  the  resulting  decrease  in  prices.  The 
matter  seems  to  resolve  itself  down  to  the  fact  that  the  closed 
shop  is  an  economic  and  social  crime  from  which  absolutely  no 
permanent  good  to  any  one  can  result,  not  even  to  the  union 
man  himself.  Those  who  sincerely  believe  in  the  combination  of 
working  men  for  their  own  protection  and  in  the  value  such 
combinations  could  have  industrially  and  socially,  should  be  the 
last  to  encourage  perpetuation  of  the  closed   shop  system. 

Public  Final  Arbiter 

It  is  often  said  that  it  takes  two  to  close  a  shop — the  em- 
ployer and  the  union.  We  may  add  another  party,  the  general 
public,  for  without  the  approval  and  acquiesence  of  the  general 
public,  which  is  the  final  arbiter  in  industrial  matters  as  well 
as  the  final  consumer  which  pays  the  bills,  such  a  system  could 
not  exist.  The  political  activity  of  the  unions  in  their  endeavor 
to  secure  legislation  favorable  to  their  coercive  methods  is 
forcing  these  questions  upon  the  public  to  a  greater  extent 
than  ever  before.  There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  the  ability  of  the 
American  people  to  settle  the  questions  involved  when  it  finally 
takes  them  up  in  earnest.  Disassociated  as  it  is  from  the 
interests  of  the  masses  and  standing  for  special  privileges  to  a 


162  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

few,  closed  shop  unionism  has  Httle  chance  of  making  much 
headway  as  a  public  issue,  especially  with  a  people  who  have 
developed  a  habit  of  thinking  that  all  great  industrial  combin- 
ations should  serve  some  public  good,  and  have  formed  a  firm 
and  deep-seated  purpose  of  regulating  and  controlling  the  great 
combinations  and  trusts  of  capital,  so  as  to  protect  and  subserve 
the  public  interest. 


THE  CLOSED  SHOP  OR  THE  REPUBLIC' 

America  will  abolish  the  closed  shop,  or  the  closed  shop 
will  crush  America.  There  was  a  time  when  the  closed  shop 
was  used  by  organized  labor  to  consolidate  victories  in  hours 
and  wages,  and  to  prevent  any  reverses  through  a  break  in 
the  ranks.  Such  breaks,  it  was  assumed,  would  be  avoided  by 
compelling  every  prospective  employe  in  a  given  plant  to  join 
the  union  before  he  could  go  to  work.  Thus  we  got  "recog- 
nition of  the  union"  as  a  cardinal  principle  of  organized  la- 
bor. Recognition  of  the  union  in  any  instance  means,  in  the 
parlance  of  organized  labor,  the  establishment  of  a  closed 
shop.  So,  also,  the  right  to  organize  labor  unions,  which  all 
America  concedes,  means  in  the  parlance  of  organized  labor 
the  right  to  establish  the  closed  shop,  something  which  all 
America  does  not  concede  and  which  America  can  not  afford 
to  concede.  For  the  closed  shop  today  has  little  or  no  rela- 
tion to  hours  and  wages.  The  closed  shop  today  is  used  by 
organized  labor  primarily  for  the  acquisition  of  political 
power. 

The  most  impressive  illustration  of  that  fact  began  with  the 
passage  of  the  Adamson  law  by  Congress  in  1916.  The  rail- 
road brotherhoods  had  long  enjoyed  the  monopoly  of  employ- 
ment known  as  the  closed  shop.  They  demanded  a  raise  of 
pay  in  the  disguise  of  an  eight-hour  working  day.  To  avert 
a  railroad  strike,  the  President  of  the  United  States  besought 
the  Congress  of  the  United  States  to  give  the  brotherhoods  by 
law  practically  what  they  had  demanded  from  their  employers. 
The  brotherhood  chiefs  gave  Congress  so  many  hours  to  come 
across,  and  sat  in  the  galleries  of  the  House  and  Senate  with 
stop  watches   in  their  hands   to   see  not   only  that  their   word 

1 H.   M.  Nimmo.     The  Labor  American.    2:9-10.    December,    1920. 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  163 

was  made  law,  but  that  it  was  made  law  on  time.  Congress 
obeyed  its  masters  and  the  strike  was  avoided. 

Some  months  later  one  of  the  brotherhoods  again  asserted 
its  superiority  to  the  United  States  Government  by  expelhng 
some  of  its  members  for  testifying  before  the  Interstate  Com- 
merce  Commission   contrary  to   brotherhood   regulations. 

The  climax  of  union  dictation  was  reached  when  the 
brotherhoods  swooned  down  on  Washington  during  the  past 
year  and  demanded  that  Congress  buy  all  the  railroads  in  the 
United  States  and  in  effect  turn  control  of  them  over  to  the 
brotherhoods.  And  for  that  plan,  camouflaged  as  Government 
ownership,  the  whole  American  Federation  of  Labor  voted  by 
nearly  four  to  one  in  its  recent  convention  in  Montreal.  Does 
any  sane  man  believe  that  without  the  closed  shop  and  the 
monopoly  it  gives  these  brotherhoods  on  railroad  employment 
they  would  have  the  arrogance  to  mulct  the  nation  for  such 
a  sum  as  that? 

The  steel  strike  was  not  a  strike  for  hours  or  wages.  It 
was  a  strike  for  political  power,  as  the  Senate  investigation 
clearly  showed.  It  was  a  strike,  for  one  thing,  aganst  "com- 
pany unions,"  which  transacted  business  with  the  employer 
without  the  aid  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  and  its 
professional  labor  leaders.  It  was  a  strike  to  fasten  the  closed 
shop  on  the  steel  industry,  and  bring  it  into  complete  subjec- 
tion, like  the  railroads,  to  organized  labor.  The  gentleman 
who  first  devised  the  plan  of  having  the  Government  buy  the 
railroads  for  the  unions  has  since  included  in  his  program  all 
the  basic  industries,  and  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  is 
formulating  another  campaign    for  the   conquest  of   steel. 

The  Boston  police  strike,  backed  by  the  American  Federa- 
tion of  Labor,  was  a  deliberate  defiance  of  constituted  author- 
ity, and  an  attempt  to  set  organized  labor  above  the  law,  and 
it  was  accepted  as  such  by  the  people  of  Massachusetts  when 
they  re-elected  by  one  of  the  largest  majorities  ever  polled  in 
that  state  the  Governor  who  smashed  it. 

The  attack  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  on  the 
Kansas  industrial  court  is  avowedly  an  attack  on  the  right  of 
the  American  people  to  guarantee  themselves  the  elemental 
necessities  of  food,  clothes  and  shelter.  "The  public,"  says 
President  Gompers,  "has  no  rights  which  are  superior  to  the 
toiler's  right  to  live  and  to  his  right  to  defend  himself  against 


i64  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

oppression."  But  the  Kansas  industrial  court  does  not  ques- 
tion the  toiler's  right  to  live  or  to  defend  himself  from  op- 
pression. On  the  contrary,  the  Kansas  industrial  court  was 
established  to  assert  and  enforce  those  rights  by  judicial  pro- 
cedure rather  than  by  strikes. 

What  is  more,  Mr.  Gompers  knows  that  quite  well,  but  he 
prefers  strikes  to  judicial  procedure  or  any  other  government 
action.  "The  freedom  of  workmen  in  enjoyment  of  the  right 
to  strike,"  he  argues,  "means  the  freedom  of  men  to  make 
life  better,  safer,  happier."  It  is  equally  true  that  the  freedom 
of  workmen  in  enjoyment  of  the  right  to  work  means  the  free- 
dom of  men  to  make  life  better,  safer,  happier.  Kansas  would 
guarantee  to  every  man  the  primary  right  to  work,  strike  or 
no  strike.  Gompers  would  take  that  right  away  from  him  and 
vest  it  in  a  closed  shop  labor  union. 

You  can't  make  life  very  safe  or  happy  if  you  can't  get 
any  food  or  clothes  or  shelter,  and  if  Mr.  Gompers  has  his 
way  you  won't  have  any  food  or  clothes  or  shelter  whenever 
a  food  union,  or  a  clothes  union,  or,  let  us  say,  a  coal  union, 
is  on  strike.  It  is  Mr.  Gompers'  conception  of  freedom  that 
anybody  who  tries  to  get  you  or  your  children  any  food  or 
clothes  or  coal  under  such  circumstances  is  a  scab,  and  if  you 
try  to  get  any  of  these  things  yourself  by  voting  for  a  court 
that  can  remove  the  cause  of  such  a  strike  or  protect  those 
who  are  willing  to  take  the  place  of  the  strikers,  Mr.  Gompers 
will  tell  you  with  a  perfectly  straight  face  that  you  are  mak- 
ing a  slave  of  the  workingman,  though  he  will  not  carry  his 
logic  far  enough  to  admit  that  the  workingman  who  is  will- 
ing to  starve  or  freeze  you  or  your  family  by  striking  is  mak- 
ing a  slave  of  you. 

The  slaves  Mr.  Gompers  talks  about  are  all  slaves  with 
votes.  If  they  don't  like  an  industrial  court,  or  any  other  bit 
of  government  machinery,  let  them  wipe  it  out  at  the  polls 
like  American  citizens.  If  they  can't  wipe  it  out  at  the  polls 
they  are  in  the  minority.  Being  in  the  minority— Mr.  Gompers 
himself  doesn't  claim  over  a  fourth  of  the  population  for  or- 
ganized labor— they  can  inflict  their  will  on  the  Government  of 
the  majority  only  by  the  use  of  force,  and  that  force  they 
mobilize  in  the  closed  shop,  which  aims  to  monopolize  em- 
ployment and  control  industry  and  so  exercise  a  political  dic- 
tatorship  after  the  manner  of  the   railroad  brotherhoods. 

So    determined    is    organized    labor    to    run    the    country    to 


THE   CLOSED   SHOP  165 

suit  itself,  even  though  it  represents  only  a  minority,  that  it 
opposes  every  attempt  of  the  vast  majority  to  restrict  or  de- 
limit industrial  warfare  by  Government  action.  The  Ameri- 
can Federation  of  Labor  not  only  opposed  the  anti-strike 
clause  in  the  new  railroad  law,  but  is  even  now  demanding 
the  abolition  of  the  railroad  wage  board  set  up  in  that  law 
as  a  buffer  for  strikes.  All  Government  boards,  whether  of 
conciliation  or  arbitration  or  investigation,  are  anathema  to  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor.  Profit  sharing  of  all  kinds  is 
denounced  by  organized  labor  because  it  brings  the  employer 
and  employe  together,  and  organized  labor  must  keep  them 
apart  to  hold  its  job.  Compulsory  investigation  of  industrial 
disputes  Mr,  Gompers  has  described  as  a  "blood  relation"  of 
compulsory  arbitration  because  it  tends  to  supend  the  right  to 
strike. 

The  divine  right  to  strike  is  the  spiritual  successor  of  the 
divine  right  of  kings,  which  civilization  long  since  laid  away 
among  the  relics  of  the  race,  and  for  that  right  to  strike  or- 
ganized labor  is  willing  to  visit  on  this  country  suffering  and 
loss  such  as  organized  labor  itself  would  not  permit  a  foreign 
power  to  impose  on  us.  Strikes  cost  the  United  States  two 
billion   dollars   last  year. 

Either  the  Government  of  the  United  States  is  going  to 
preserve  fundamental  American  rights  from  union  aggression, 
or  the  Government  of  the  United  States  is  going  to  submit  to 
a  super-government  of  the  unions,  for  the  unions  and  by  the 
unions.  The  second  alternative  means  class  rule  and  class 
legislation,  in  which  Russia  presents  such  a  conspicuous  fail- 
ure. 

Between  Russian  bolshevism  and  the  American  closed  shop 
there  is  little  difference  as  far  as  the  operation  of  industry  is 
concerned.  Bolshevism  seizes  the  industries  outright  and 
makes  the  Government  responsible  for  them,  whereas  the 
closed  shop  strives  to  control  the  industries  without  relieving 
the  owners  of  any  financial  responsibility;  but  that  difference 
will  begin  to  disappear  if  the  American  Federation  of  Labor 
succeeds  with  its  railroad  policy,  and  proceeds  with  the  rest  of 
Mr.  Plumb's  plan  for  the  nationalizing  of  the  basic  industries. 

Between  Bolshevism  and  the  closed  shop  there  are  startling 
points  of  resemblance.  The  closed  shop  stands  for  a  standard 
•  f  work  under  which  the  most  incompetent  can  qualify  for  a 
day's  pay ;   it  stands   for  retarded  and  lowered  production ;   it 


t66  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

stands  for  organized  slacking;  it  stands  for  a  maximum  wage 
and  a  minimum  of  effort.  Bolshevism,  under  which  the 
workers  themselves  at  first  operated  the  industries,  revealed 
precisely  the  same  weaknesses,  and  at  such  cost  to  the  country 
that  the  Bolshevik  chiefs  have  been  compelled  to  reinstate  one- 
man  managements  and  to  apply  conscription  to  labor  in  order 
to  get  something  for  the  country  to  live  on.  The  closed  shop 
is  fostering  for  America  the  same  economic  disaster,  with  the 
Plumb  plan  as  the  first  bitter  fruit.  With  an  economic  fallacy 
for  a  foundation  the  people  of  America  are  now  being  asked 
to  erect  a  half  socialistic  state  and  finance  it.  Their  purse  is 
not  long  enough — and  never  will  be. 

The  answer  to  this  conspiracy  against  the  Republic  is  the 
open  shop,  wherein  a  man  may  earn  a  living  without  paying 
tribute  for  it ;  where  individual  freedom  reigns ;  where  the 
best  man  wins  what  is  coming  to  him ;  where  a  fair  day's  work 
for  a  fair  day's  pay  is  still  an  honored  motto ;  where  reason- 
able discipline  guarantees  reasonable  production  and  efficiency ; 
where  an  American  citizen  may  retain  his  first  allegiance  to 
his  country  and  to  his  Government. 


THE  CASE  FOR  THE  OPEN  SHOP 

It  is  apparent  from  our  experiences  of  the  past  that  we 
cannot  hope  for  efficient  production  under  a  closed  shop  or 
organized  labor  control.  Unwise  leadership  has  chosen  to 
restrict  production  wherever  organization  had  secured  control 
of  an  industry  or  an  establishment.  Each  succeeding  increase 
in  wage  has  been  followed  by  a  decrease  in  output  under 
stringent  rules.  The  flagrant  abuses  in  the  building  trades  are 
familiar  to  all  of  us  and  are  only  indicative  of  similar  abuses 
wherever  organized  labor  has  secured  control  over  industry. 
The  inability  of  wages  to  ever  overtake  cost  of  living  under 
such  practice  is  so  apparent  that  it  is  difficult  to  understand 
why  it  is  continued.  The  fact  that  there  have  been  so  few 
organized  industries,  as  compared  with  the  independent  ones 
is  all  that  has  prevented  disaster  before  this. 

I  can  see  but  one  permanent  remedy  for  this  condition,  and 
that  is  the  adoption  of  wage  system  based  on  production.  The 
employer   must  assume   responsibility   for  development   of  such 

*By  John  W.   O'Leary.    Nation's  Business.    8:i8.    June,    1920. 


THE   CLOSED   SHOP  167 

systems.  They  must  be  fairly  based,  so  that  an  honest  day's 
work  will  produce  an  honest  day's  pay.  Beyond  that,  the  in- 
dividual workmen  should  be  unrestricted  and  every  effort 
made  to  encourage  a  maximum  of  output.  The  result  will  be 
a  high  real  wage,  rather  than  a  high  money  wage,  a  partici- 
pation in  profits  of  industry  and  a  benefit  which  will  reach  the 
public.  Shorter  hours  will  be  possible  and,  not  least  of  the 
advantages  of  such  system,  will  be  contented  men.  It  is  un- 
natural for  men  to  be  contented  under  a  program  of  work 
which  requires  them  to  kill  time,  and  nothing  quite  equals  the 
satisfaction  of  accomplishment  of  a  real  task. 

The  establishment,  as  a  unit  of  production,  is  of  equal  im- 
portance in  our  responsibilites.  It  is  difficult  to  develop  any 
effective  means  of  sympathetic  relationship  where  manage- 
ment is  far  removed.  It  is  dangerous  to  such  relationship  to 
permit  an  outside  interest  to  intervene.  Such  intervention  or 
interference  brings  a  separation  rather  than  a  unification.  I 
know  that  it  is  contended  that  employees  can  only  express 
themselves  through  men  trained  in  fighting  their  battles.  But 
such  contention  is  based  on  a  wrong  conception  of  American 
industry.  Is  is  based  on  a  vision  of  industry  today  which  pic- 
tures a  great  corporation  with  millions  of  capital  and  manage- 
ment far  removed  from  the  individual  worker.  Yet  95  per 
cent  of  the  manufacturers  of  the  United  States  employ  less 
than  100  men,  and  98  per  cent  less  than  250. 


CLOSED  SHOP^ 

The  remarkable  growth  of  labor  organizations  in  recent 
years  has  brought  into  public  discussion  more  prominently 
than  ever  before  the  question  of  the  union  versus  the  open 
shop.  Refusals  to  submit  to  the  indignity  of  working  by  the 
side  of  "scabs,"  violent  upheavals  caused  by  the  desire  to  avoid 
contamination  from  "unfair"  materials,  and  earnest  demands 
that  public  employments  shall  be  closed  to  all  who  cannot  pro- 
duce union  cards,  are  some  of  the  aspects  which  the  problem 
assumes.  As  frequently  as  not  the  collective  agreements 
which  are  thought  to  point  the  way  to  industrial  peace  call  for 
the  complete  unionization  of  factories  or  workshops ;  while, 
through  the  agency  of  the  union    label,    the    consumer    is    in- 

1  Bullock,    C.    J.     Atlantic    Monthly.     94:433-9-      October,    1904. 


i68  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

vited   to   place   the    seal   of   his   disapproval    upon   the   employ- 
ment of   such  unclean  things   as  "rat"  or  "scab"  labor. 

Historians  of  the  labor  movement  tell  us  that  in  poorly  or- 
ganized trades  this  dislike  of  working  with  outsiders  has  often 
seemed  not  to  exist,  and  that  usually  an  exclusive  policy  has 
not  appeared  until  the  unions  have  become  large  and  powerful. 
This  fact  is  not  difficult  to  explain,  because,  other  things  being 
equal,  it  is  obvious  that  the  fighting  strength  of  a  labor  union 
depends  upon  the  comprehensiveness  of  its  membership. 
While,  therefore,  it  may  be  inexpedient  for  a  weak  union  to 
press  this  claim,  we  must  expect  that  every  accession  of 
strength  will  bring  into  the  foreground  the  contention  that 
only  union  men  shall  be  employed.  In  England,  according  to 
Mr.  Sidney  Webb,  a  few  of  the  strongest  organizations  have 
succeeded  in  making  it  impossible  for  independent  workmen 
to  secure  a  livelihood;  but  in  the  United  States  such  paradi- 
siacal conditions  are  probably  exceptional,  although  the  de- 
mand for  a  closed  shop  has  become  one  of  the  cardinal  points 
of  trade-union  policy. 

Even  outside  of  the  ranks  of  organized  labor  there  seems 
to  exist  to-day  a  considerable  body  of  opinion  favorable  to  the 
demand.  Sometimes  this  is  merely  the  result  of  a  vague  feel- 
ing that  labor  is  the  under  dog,  and  is  asking  for  nothing  more 
than  the  trusts  have  already  secured.  Not  infrequently  it  is 
voiced  by  the  socialist,  whose  passion  of  Humanity  usually 
stops  this  side  of  the  despised  "scab."  In  other  cases  it  is  due 
to  a  failure  to  realize  the  precise  nature  and  logical  conse- 
quences of  the  policy  now  under  consideration.  It  is,  doubt- 
less, upon  this  last  ground  that  we  can  explain  the  conclusion 
reached  by  the  late-lamented  Industrial  Commission,  that  there 
is,  "beyond  question,  much  force  in  the  argument  of  the  union 
men  in  defense  of  their  attempt  to  exclude  others  from  em- 
ployment." 

In  considering  the  merits  of  this  proposal  our  argument 
will  proceed  upon  the  full  and  frank  recognition  of  the  right 
of  laborers  to  organize  for  the  purpose  of  raising  wages  or 
improving  in  other  lawful  ways  the  conditions  under  which 
they  work.  Trade-unions  become  subject  to  just  criticism  only 
when  they  endeavor  to  accomplish  illegal  or  uneconomic  pur- 
poses, or  when  they  employ  improper  means  of  attaining  their 
ends.  From  this  point  of  view,  which  at  the  present  day  is 
the  only  one  worth  discussing,  the  two  questions  to  be  deter- 


THE   CLOSED   SHOP  169 

mined  concerning  the  closed  shop  are,  whether  it  is  in  itself 
a  proper  object  of  trade-union  policy,  and  whether  it  can  be 
secured  by  proper  means. 

In  defense  of  the  demand  for  a  closed  shop  it  is  usually 
argued  that  the  individual'  laborer  has  the  right  to  refuse  to 
work  with  any  person  or  class  of  persons  who  may  be  dis- 
tasteful to  him,  and  that  what  an  individual  may  rightly  do, 
a  union,  or  combination  of  individuals,  may  properly  under- 
take. When  stated  in  such  broad  terms,  the  argument  over- 
looks certain  important  qualifications  which  need  to  be  con- 
sidered carefully  before  a  safe  conclusion  can  be  reached. 

So  far  as  the  individual  laborer  is  concerned,  it  is  undoubt- 
edly true  that  a  simple  refusal  to  work  is  a  perfectly  lawful 
act.  But  the  mere  termination  of  the  employment  contract  is 
one  thing,  and  the  demand  that  a  fellow  workman  be  dis- 
charged is  quite  another.  The  former  involves  nothing  but 
the  control  of  one's  own  labor ;  the  latter  is  an  attempt  to  per- 
suade an  employer  to  have  no  dealings  with  a  third  person 
whose  right  to  secure  employment  is  thereby  invaded.  Such 
an  interference  with  the  rights  of  others  is  clearly  unlawful, 
unless  it  can  be  shown  that  there  is  adequate  justification  for 
it.  li,  for  instance,  the  obnoxious  man  be  an  incompetent  en- 
gineer whose  ignorance  or  inexperience  endangers  the  lives  of 
all  who  work  in  a  mine  or  factory,  a  demand  for  his  dis- 
charge would  be  morally  and  legally  defensible.  If,  however, 
the  demand  is  based  upon  the  laborer's  political  or  religious 
beliefs,  no  such  justification  can  be  shown  to  exist;  and  any 
one  injured  in  such  a  manner  would  be  entitled  to  recover 
damages  from  the  person  who  had  procured  his  discharge. 
Whether  now  a  refusal  to  join  a  trade-union  is  to  be  deemed 
a  satisfactory  or  an  insufficient  reason  for  interference  with 
the  contract  rights  of  the  non-union  man  will  depend  upon 
the  view  that  one  holds  concerning  the  desirability  of  permit- 
ting a  laborer  to  enjoy  freedom  in  the  disposal  of  his  labor. 
At  present  the  theory  of  our  law  is  that  this  freedom  is  a 
highly  desirable  and  important  thing,  so  that  it  is  hard  to  jus- 
,  tify  the  act  of  persuading  an  employer  to  discharge  a  non-un- 
ion man. 

But  when  a  demand  for  a  closed  shop  comes  from  a  com- 
bination of  laborers  the  objections  are  still  greater.  In  such  a 
case  the  civil  liability  for  damages  continues,  while  there  is  the 
further  possibility  that  the  act  may  constitute   a  criminal  con- 


170  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

spiracy.  In  the  eyes  of  the  law  there  are  important  differences 
between  an  individual  and  combination.  These  are  based  upon 
the  principle  that  an  individual  is  responsible  for  his  overt 
acts,  while  in  a  combination  the  mere  agreement  to  unite  for 
a  certain  purpose  constitutes  an  act  for  which  the  members  may 
be  held  accountable.  "The  number  of  the  compact,"  as  an  em- 
inent judge  has  put  it,  "give  weight  and  cause  danger;"  and  it 
is  reasonable  and  inevitable  that,  since  the  power  of  a  com- 
bination far  exceeds  that  of  an  individual,  a  stricter  account- 
ability should  be  enforced  in  the  one  case  than  in  the  other. 
If  now  it  be  unlawful  to  procure  the  discharge  of  a  fellow 
workman  who  refuses  to  join  a  union,  the  consequences  of  such 
an  act  are  all  the  graver  when  a  number  of  men  conspire  to 
bring  it  to  pass. 

The  decisions  of  our  courts  disclose  the  fact  that  some  dif- 
ference of  opinion  exists  among  our  judges.  In  most  of  the 
earlier  cases  it  was  held  that  the  attempt  of  a  union  to  pre- 
vent the  employment  of  outsiders,  and  particularly  to  secure 
the  discharge  of  men  already  employed,  constituted  an  unlaw- 
ful interference  with  the  rights  of  others.  More  recently,  how- 
ever, under  the  influence  of  the  well-known  English  case  of 
Allen  V.  Flood,  there  have  been  a  few  American  decisions  that 
admit  the  right  of  a  combination  of  laborers  to  refuse  to  work 
with  persons  who  may  for  any  reason  be  objectionable.  But 
the  decision  in  Allen  v.  Flood  did  not  relate  to  a  case  in  which 
the  existence  of  a  combination  was  established,  and,  at  the 
most,  decided  what  it  was  lawful  for  an  individual  to  do  in 
the  course  of  a  labor  dispute.  In  1901,  in  the  now  leading 
English  case  of  Quinn  v.  Leatham,  the  House  of  Lords  made 
short  work  of  a  combination  of  laborers  which  attempted  to 
bring  about  the  discharge  of  a  non-union  man  by  establishing 
a  boycott  against  his  employer.  While  for  the  United  States 
the  question  may  not  be  finally  adjudicated,  it  is  safe  to  say 
that  the  decided  weight  of  authority  is  against  the  legality  of 
the  position  of  the  trade-unionists  in  this  matter. 

Sincere  the  ultimate  legal  rule  has  not  yet  been  established, 
the  more  interest  attaches  to  the  economic  aspects  of  the  sub- 
ject, for  these,  obviously,  must  exercise  considerable  influence 
upon  the  final  course  of  the  law.  From  the  economic  point  of 
view  the  fewest  difficulties  are  encountered  in  the  case  of  a 
union  that  is  compelled  to  fight  for  the  mere  right  to  exist. 
When  employers  undertake  to  close  their  shops  to  members  of 


THE   CLOSED   SHOP  171 

labor  organizations,  a  common  device  is  to  discriminate  con- 
stantly against  union  men.  H  new  hands  are  taken  on,  out- 
siders are  certain  to  be  given  the  preference;  when  the  force 
is  reduced,  members  of  the  union  are  selected  for  dismissal. 
Under  such  circumstances  the  organization  is  likely  to  dis- 
integrate unless  it  resists  the  employment  of  non-union  men. 
If  we  grant,  as  we  have  done,  that  laborers  have  a  right  to 
organize,  it  is  hard  to  criticise  a  union  for  meeting  discrim- 
ination with  discrimination.  A  refusal  to  work  with  non- 
union men  in  a  shop  or  factory  where  discrimination  is  prac- 
ticed against  the  members  of  the  union  has  neither  the  purpose 
nor  the  necessary  effect  of  establishing  a  monopoly  or  infring- 
ing the  rights  of  others ;  the  only  practicable  alternative  would 
seem  to  be  the  surrender  of  what  is  conceded  to  be  a  clear 
legal  right.  It  may  be  difficult  for  the  courts  to  find  a  differ- 
ence between  such  a  case  as  this  and  the  others  that  constantly 
arise,  but  that  there  is  an  economic  and  a  moral  distinction 
can  hardly  be  doubted  by  one  who  believes  that  laborers  have 
the  right  to  organize.  This  has  been  recognized  in  the  laws 
which  some  sixteen  states  have  passed  "prohibiting  employers 
from  discharging  employees  for  belonging  to  or  for  joining 
labor  unions,  or  from  making  it  a  condition  of  employment  that 
they  shall  not  be  members  af  such  unions."  The  constitution- 
ality of  such  a  statute  has  been  denied  in  Missouri  and  upheld 
in  Ohio,  so  that  we  here  encounter  another  legal  difficulty 
that  it  ill  behooves  a  layman  to  attempt  to  settle.  But  if  the 
right  to  organize  exists  and  is  deemed  by  the  legislature  to 
be  important  enough  to  require  legal  protection,  it  is  hard  to 
see  why  these  laws  differ  materially  from  the  statutes  found  in 
nearly  all  the  states  prohibiting  employers  from  interfering 
with  the  political  rights  and  privileges  of  their  workmen.  More 
important,  however,  than  the  constitutionality  of  these  enact- 
ments is  the  fact  that  in  practice  they  can  be  of  comparatively 
little  protection  to  the  laborer.  Most  wage  contracts  are  term- 
inable at  any  time  at  the  pleasure  of  either  party,  and  it  is 
not  easy  to  establish  by  legal  proof  the  precise  reason  for  the 
discharge  of  a  union  workman.  Unless,  therefore,  laborers 
are  allowed  to  protect  themselves  under  the  circumstances  now 
in  view,  it  would  seem  that  they  suffer  from  grievous  disabil- 
ities under  our  present  law. 

But  the   situation   is  radically  altered   when   a  union  under- 
takes, in  cases  where  no  discrimination  is  practiced  by  employ- 


172  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

ers,  to  insist  upon  the  exclusion  of  all  independent  workmen 
from  an  entire  craft  or  trade.  The  argument  in  favor  of  such 
a  policy  has  recently  been  stated  by  Mr.  John  Mitchell  in  the 
following  words:  "The  union  workmen  who  refuse  to  work, 
with  non-unionists  do  not  say  in  so  many  words  that  the  em- 
ployers shall  not  engage  non-union  workmen.  The  dictum  of 
the  trade-union  is  not  equivalent  to  an  act  of  Congress  or  of 
a  state  legislature  prohibiting  employers  from  engaging  non- 
union men.  What  the  unionists  in  such  cases  do  is  merely 
to  stipulate  as  a  condition  that  they  shall  not  be  obliged  to 
work  with  men  who,  as  non-unionists,  are  obnoxious,  just  as 
they  shall  not  be  obliged  to  work  in  a  dangerous  or  unsani- 
tary factory,  for  unduly  long  hours,  or  at  insufficient  wages. 
Of  course,  when  unions  are  strong  and  include  all  the  best 
men  in  the  industry,  this  condition  amounts  to  a  very  real 
compulsion.  The  compulsion,  however,  is  merely  the  result  of 
the  undoubted  legal  right  of  workmen  to  decide  upon  what 
terms  they  are  willing  to  give  their  labor,  and  the  employer 
is  always  theoretically  and  often  practically  in  a  position  where 
he  may  make  his  choice  between  union  and  non-union  labor." 
It  will  be  observed  that  Mr.  Mitchell  candidly  admits  that  the 
policy  may  result  in  "a  very  real  compulsion"  both  upon  em- 
ployers and  upon  non-union  men.  Elsewhere  he  remarks : 
"With  the  rapid  extension  of  trade-unions,  the  tendency  is 
toward  the  growth  of  compulsory  membership  in  them,  and 
the  time  will  doubtless  come  when  this  compulsion  will  be  as 
general  and  will  be  considered  as  little  of  a  grievance  as  the 
compulsory  attendance  of  children  at  school." 

Mr.  Mitchell's  honest  admission  that  the  demand  for  a 
closed  shop  may  result  in  "a  very  real  compulsion"  carries  us 
at  once  to  the  heart  of  the  objections  that  can  be  urged  against 
it.  By  this  policy  a  combination  of  workmen  undertakes  to 
determine  for  all  concerned  in  an  entire  trade  the  conditions 
under  which  employment  must  be  offered  and  accepted.  This 
mere  statement  of  the  case  is  sufficient  to  establish  the  dif- 
ference between  an  individual's  refusal  to  work  and  that  of  a 
combination.  The  trade-union  undertakes  to  do  a  thing  which 
no  sane  individual  could  expect  to  accomplish  by  his  unaided 
effort,  and  the  purpose  of  its  demand  is  something  that 
changes  the  whole  character  of  the  act. 

The  first  objection  that  may  he  brought  against  such  a 
policy  is  that  a  trade-union  which  attempts  to  exclude  all  out- 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  173 

siders  from  a  craft  or  industry  is  seeking  to  establish  a  mo- 
nopoly, and  that  a  combination  formed  for  such  a  purpose  is 
both  legally  and  economically  indefensible.  To  this  charge 
Mr.  Mitchell  and  others  have  replied  that  the  union  is  not 
a  monopoly  so  long  as  it  opens  its  doors  to  all  persons  who 
are  desirous  of  entering  its  trade.  Mr.  Mitchell,  indeed,  frank- 
ly admits  that  if  "a  union  is  working  not  for  the  interest  of  all 
the  men  at  the  trade,  but  of  the  members  who  at  that  time  are 
actually  in  the  union,  if  it  is  unduly  restrictive,  prohibiting 
apprentices,  charging  exorbitant  initiation  fees,  and  excluding 
capable  applicants  for  membership,  then  its  refusal  to  work 
with  non-unionists  is  monopolistic."  Such  a  case  is  probably 
too  clear  to  permit  of  serious  dispute.  The  Report  of  the  In- 
dustrial Commission  makes  the  same  qualification  that  Mr. 
Mitchell  admits  at  this  point. 

It  may  be  contended,  however,  that  the  policy  of  an  exclu- 
sive and  restrictive  union  in  enforcing  a  closed  shop  does  not 
differ  from  the  regulations  enforced  by  some  of  the  trusts 
which  refuse  to  sell  their  goods,  or  refuse  to  sell  upon  equit- 
able terms,  to  merchants  who  buy  from  any  possible  competi- 
tor. In  the  factor's  agreement  these  monopolistic  tactics  have 
been  reduced  to  a  fine  art,  without  enlisting  any  apparent  op- 
position from  many  of  the  people  who  declaim  against  the 
closed  shop.  That  this  comparison  is  well  founded  does  not 
admit  of  a  reasonable  doubt.  To  refuse  to  sell  sugar  or  to- 
bacco to  a  dealer  who  will  not  agree  to  buy  from  no  other 
source  is  precisely  like  the  refusal  of  laborers  to  work  for  a 
person  who  will  not  buy  all  his  labor  from  the  trade-union. 
To  refuse  to  sell  upon  equitable  terms  may  be  a  refinement  of 
the  process,  but  it  alters  in  no  way  the  purpose  or  the  effect 
of  the  policy.  Professor  Clark  is  right,  beyond  a  peradven- 
ture,  when  he  contends  that  such  a  contract  should  be  taken 
as  conclusive  evidence  of  the  existence  of  monopolistic  power 
and  monopolistic  intent.  Yet  the  recogniton  of  this  fact  does 
not  oblige  us  to  approve  of  the  closed  shop:  it  is  equally  log- 
ical to  condemn  such  tactics  on  the  part  of  either  trade-union 
or  trust,  and  it  is  to  be  hoped  that  the  final  view  of  our  courts 
will  recognize  the  similarity  and  the  obnoxious  character  of 
both  of  these  policies. 

But  what  shall  be  said  of  the  trade-union  that  is  not  ex- 
clusive in  the  matter  of  admitting  all  competent  persons  who 
may   desire  to  enter  its  industry  or  craft?     In  order  to  avoid 


174  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

an  argument  about  the  proper  definiton  of  the  word,  it  may 
be  well  to  refrain  from  calling  such  a  union  as  Mr.  Mitchell 
leads  a  monopoly,  and  to  describe  the  purpose  and  effect  of 
the  closed  shop  in  other  terms.  The  President  of  the  United 
Mineworkers  admits  that  the  effect  of  this  demand,  when  it  is 
made  by  a  strong  union,  is  to  exert  "a  very  real  compulsion" 
upon  both  employers  and  non-union  men;  and  he  is  too  can- 
did to  deny  that  this  is  one  of  the  purposes  that  the  organiza- 
tion has  in  view.  Leaving  the  employer  out  of  the  reckoning, 
for  the  purpose  of  our  argument,  it  is  obvious  that  this  com- 
pulsion affects  the  non-union  man  in  a  matter  wherin  his  free- 
dom of  action  is  legally  and,  it  is  probable,  economically  a  mat- 
ter of  as  much  concern  to  society  as  the  freedom  of  the  union- 
ist to  combine  for  proper  purposes.  Unless  we  are  prepared 
to  relegate  all  the  laborers  in  a  trade-union  to  a  condition  or 
status  determined  by  a  combination  or  association  known  as  a 
trade-union,  and  to  deny  the  advisability  of  permitting  a  work- 
er to  choose  freely  between  an  individual  or  a  collective  con- 
tract, we  must  insist  that  the  compulsory  unionization  of  in- 
dustry is  economically  indefensible.  Even  if  the  union  is  not 
called  a  monopoly,  it  is  evident  that  the  demand  for  a  union 
shop  leads  to  the  introduction  of  compulsion  into  a  situation 
in  which  it  is  generally  believed  that  freedom  is  beneficial. 

The  trade-unionist,  however,  will  usually  deny  that  freedom 
to  make  an  individual  contract  with  an  employer  is  advantage- 
ous to  the  laborer.  He  will  contend  that  the  time  has  come 
when  freedom  of  individual  contract  results  in  the  systematic 
exploitation  of  the  workers,  so  that  the  welfare  of  the  laboring 
classes  and  of  society  demands  that  collective  bargaining  shall 
be  universally  established,  by  persuasion  if  possible,  by  com- 
pulsion when  necessary.  It  is  argued,  furthermore,  that  since 
the  maintenance  of  tolerable  conditions  of  employment  de- 
pends upon  the  efforts  and  sacrifices  of  the  trade-unionists,  it 
is  only  just  that  the  outsiders  should  be  compelled  to  con- 
tribute to  the  support  of  the  organization.  Sometimes,  indeed, 
assuming  the  attributes  of  political  sovereignty,  the  unions  de- 
nounce as  "traitors"  the  recalcitrants  who  refuse  to  be 
gathered  into  the  fold.  Thus  it  appears  that  the  philosophy 
of  the  closed  shop  is  based  upon  the  belief  that  the  welfare  of 
the  laboring  classes  is  bound  up  with  the  device  of  collective 
bargaining,  that  the  success  of  this  expedient  depends  upon  its 
universal   application,   and   that  no  individual   workman  can  be 


THE   CLOSED   SHOP  175 

conceded  rights  that  are  inconsistent  with  the  welfare  of  his 
class.  This,  and  nothing  else,  is  the  meaning  of  the  closed 
shop. 

It  must  be  evident  that  if  the  theories  of  the  trade-unionist 
are  correct  in  this  matter,  we  shall  have  to  revolutionize  our 
present  views  of  economic  policy  and  individual  rights.  With- 
out, however,  considering  whether  such  a  change  is  desirable 
or  possible,  it  may  be  demonstrated  that,  even  if  the  unionist 
is  so  far  right,  it  does  not  follow  that  it  is  lawful  or  expedi-. 
ent  for  private  combinations  of  laborers  to  undertake  the  com- 
pulsory organization  of  industry.  Such  compulsion  is  prob- 
ably illegal  in  the  present  state  of  our  law,  and  should  pro- 
ceed, in  any  case,  from  the  government,  and  not  from  private 
associations  of  any  character  whatever. 

For,  in  the  first  place,  it  is  practically  certain  that  a  domi' 
neering  and  monopolistic  spirit  will  manifest  itself  ultimately 
in  any  private  organization  that  acquires  such  far-reaching  and 
important  powers.  This  is  the  inevitable  result  of  human  in- 
firmities from  which  laborers  are  no  more  exempt  than  cap- 
italists. The  mere  love  of  power,  for  one  thing,  is  likely  to 
lead  to  arbitrary  and  unwarranted  acts  of  self-aggrandizement; 
while  the  still  stronger  motive  of  monopoly — hunger — is  always 
present,  even  if  for  the  moment  it  may  seem  to  slumber.  We 
have  had  with  us,  to  be  sure,  in  recent  years  a  considerable 
number  of  apologists  for  monopoly;  but  their  arguments  have 
not  yet  convinced  many  people  that  it  is  for  the  public  interest 
to  vest  uncontrolled  monopolistic  powers  in  private  hands. 
Without  attempting  to  compare  the  possible  evils  of  a  mo- 
nopoly of  labor  with  those  resulting  from  combinations  of  cap- 
ital, we  may  safely  conclude  that  it  would  be  highly  dangerous  to 
allow  a  permanent  and  all-inclusive  organization  of  laborers 
to  control  such  matters  as  admission  to  a  trade,  the  introduction 
of  improved  machinery,  and  the  rate  of  wages.  As  a  matter 
of  fact  it  is  highly  desirable  that  a  trade-union  should  always 
be  kept  upon  its  good  behavior  by  the  knowledge  that  an  un- 
reasonable or  selfish  policy  will  drive  both  employers  and  the 
■  public  to  seek  relief  by  appealing  to  the  non-union  man.  Not 
a  few  sincere  friends  of  labor  organizations  are  now  hoping 
that  the  unions  may  be  delivered  from  the  consequences  sure  to 
follow  the  general  establishment  of  the  closed  shop. 

In  the  next  place,  even  if  the  fear  of  monopoly  be  ill 
founded,  it  is   reasonabley  clear  that  a  trade-union  is  a  most 


176  .  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

undesirable  agent  to  employ  in  enforcing  the  compulsory  or- 
ganization of  labor.  To  say  nothing  of  other  matters,  such  as 
the  loss  occasioned  by  strikes,  it  is  certain  that  when  the  union 
goes  forth  to  battle  for  the  closed  shop  it  can  hardly  avoid 
arousing  some  of  the  worst  passions  of  human  nature,  even 
though  its  leaders  studiously  avoid  all  appeals  to  hatred  or 
violence.  When  a  body  of  men  is  told  that  a  "scab"  has  no 
right  to  employment,  that  he  is  an  enemy  of  the  laboring  class, 
and  must  be  compelled  to  change  his  ways,  the  union  is  playing 
with  edged  tools  that  cannot  be  handled  with  safety  in  the  ex- 
citement of  a  strike.  From  this  source  arise  most  of  the 
serious  evils  that  do  so  much  to  discredit  the  labor  movement 
in  the  minds  of  law-abiding  men  and  to  furnish  ammunition  to 
its  enemies.  If  the  desirability  of  compulsory  membership  is  ever 
to  be  considered,  the  question  should  be  decided  in  another 
forum,  where  the  passions  aroused  by  the  strike  will  give  place 
to  the  amenities  of  orderly  political  discussion.  The  plight  in 
which  several  of  our  largest  cities  have  recently^  found  them- 
selves should  be  sufficient  proof  of  this  contention. 

This  brings  us  to  a  final,  and  most  important  consideration. 
A  little  reflection  should  convince  any  one  that  the  conditions 
under  which  a  man  shall  dispose  of  his  labor  are  of  such  ex- 
ceeding importance  to  society  that,  if  freedom  is  to  be  denied, 
the  restrictions  imposed  should  be  determined  by  the  govern- 
ment and  not  by  any  other  agency.  Such  regulations  should 
be  just,  uniform,  and  certain;  they  should  not  be  subject  to  the 
possible  caprice,  selfishness,  or  special  exigencies  of  a  labor 
organization.  Here,  as  elsewhere,  we  should  apply  the  princi- 
ple that,  when  it  is  necessary  to  restrict  the  freedom  of  labor 
or  capital  to  enter  any  industry,  the  matter  becomes  the  sub- 
ject of  public  concern  and  public  regulation.  If  membership 
in  a  labor  organization  is  to  be  a  condition  precedent  to  the 
right  of  securing  employment,  it  will  be  necessary  for  the 
government  to  control  the  constitution,  policy,  and  manage- 
ment of  such  associations  so  far  as  may  be  requisite  for  the 
purpose  in  view.  Only  upon  these  terms  would  the  compul- 
sory unionization  of  industry  be  conceivable.  Of  course,  before 
such  legislation  could  be  enacted,  a  change  in  the  organic  law 
of  the  states  and  the  nation  would  need  to  be  effected,  for  we 
now  have  numerous  constitutional  guarantees  of  the  right  of 
property  in  labor.  These  guarantees  include  the  right  to  make 
lawful  contracts,  and  the  individual  freedom  so  ordained  can  be 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  m 

restricted  by  the  legislature  only  when  the  restraint  can  be 
justified  as  a  proper  exercise  of  the  police  power.  Time  and 
effort  might  be  required  for  securing  such  constitutional  amend- 
ments; but  our  instruments  of  government  provide  a  lawful 
and  reasonable  method  of  accomplishing  this  result. 

The  object  of  this  article  has  been  so  much  to  consider 
the  merits  or  demerits  of  the  closed  shop  as  to  explain  its 
purpose  and  logical  consequences.  It  should  be  tolerably  evident 
that  this  demand  of  the  trade-unions  would  lead  to  revolution 
in  our  law  and  our  economic  policy;  whether  the  prospect  of  a 
compulsory  regimentation  of  labor  is  sufficiently  attractive  to 
make  such  a  change  desirable  is  a  question  into  which  we  shall 
not  now  enter.  The  socialist,  of  course,  would  welcome  this, 
or  any  other,  limitation  of  the  rights  of  the  individual.  He 
who  wishes  to  form  an  opinion  upon  the  subject  would  do  well 
to  study  the  history  of  the  mediaeval  guilds,  and  to  examine 
particularly  the  influence  of  these  institutions  upon  individual 
opportunity  and  economic  progress.  This  might  not  enable  one 
to  reach  definite  conclusions  concerning  the  proposal  to  organize 
modern  labor  upon  the  mediaeval  basis,  but  it  would  at  least 
furnish  a  point  of  departure.  It  would  be  worth  while,  also,  to 
inquire  to  what  extent  the  guilds  were  able,  even  with  the  sanc- 
tion of  the  law,  to  maintain  their  monopoly  of  industrial  oppor- 
tunity, and  what  methods  were  employed  in  dealing  with  inter- 
lopers. Finally,  it  would  be  necessary  to  consider  whether 
modern  conditions  require  mobility  or  fixity  of  economic  rela- 
tionships, and  whether  compulsory  organization  of  labor  would 
meet  the  demands  of  the  present  age.  After  these  things  had 
been  determined  it  would  be  time  enough  to  speculate  about 
matters  concerning  which  we  cannot  learn  much  from  present 
or  past  experience.  Meanwhile,  no  matter  what  the  ultimate 
conclusion  may  have  to  be,  something  will  be  gained  if  we 
realize  the  far-reaching  consequences  of  a  decision  to  pro- 
nounce a  sentence  of  economic  outlawry  upon  the  non-union 
man. 

OPEN  SHOP  * 

The   arguments  in   favor  of  the  open  shop  are  based  upon 

the  necessity  of  preserving  the  freedom  of  individual  contracts. 

Right   of  Individual   Contract — In   a   recent   decision   of   the 

^  Bliss,  William  D.   P.     New  Encyclopedia  of  Social  Reform,    p.  853. 


178  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

Superior  Court  of  Cook  County,  Illinois,  it  was  held  that  agree- 
ments for  the  closed  shop  "would,  if  executed,  tend  to  create 
a  monopoly  in  favor  of  the  members  of  the  different  unions,  to 
the  exclusion  of  workmen  not  members  of  such  unions,  and  are, 
in  this  respect,  unlawful." 

The  law  of  morality  and  the  law  of  man  forbid  any  citizen, 
whether  he  be  laborer  or  capitalist,  to  enforce  his  demands  by 
the  oppression  of  others,  by  a  denial  to  any  man  of  his  right 
to  work,  for  whom  he  will,  and  for  what  he  will,  of  his  right 
to  hire  any  man  for  what  that  man  is  willing  to  accept. 

The  freedom  of  action  is  legally  and,  it  is  probable,  economi- 
cally a  matter  of  as  much  concern  to  society  as  the  freedom  of 
the    unionist   to    combine    for    proper   purposes. 

Unless  we  are  prepared  to  relegate  all  the  laborers  in  a  trade 
to  a  condition  or  status  determined  by  a  combination  or  associa- 
tion known  as  a  trade-union,  and  to  deny  the  advisibility  of 
permitting  a  worker  to  choose  freely  between  an  individual  or 
a  collective  contract,  we  must  insist  that  the  compulsory  unioniza- 
tion  of   industry   is    economically   indefensible. 

The  conditions  under  which  a  man  shall  dispose  of  his 
labor  are  of  such  exceeding  importance  to  society  that,  if  free- 
dom is  to  be  denied,  the  restrictions  imposed  should  be  deter- 
mined by  the  government  and  not  by  any  other  agency.  Such 
regulations  should  be  just,  uniform,  and  certain;  they  should 
not  be  subject  to  the  possible  caprice,  selfishness,  or  special 
exigencies  of  a  labor  organization.  When  it  is  necessary  to  re- 
strict the  freedom  of  labor  or  capital  to  enter  any  industry, 
the  matter  becomes  the  subject  of  public  concern  and  public 
regulation.  If  membership  in  a  labor  organization  is  to  be  a 
condition  precedent  to  the  right  of  securing  employment,  it 
will  be  necessary  for  the  government  to  control  the  constitution, 
policy,  and  management  of  such  associations  so  far  as  may  be 
requisite  for  the  purpose  in  view. 

Trade-unions  have  no  right  to  usurp  the  sovereignty  of  the 
State  and  to  destroy  that  individual  freedom  which  is  the  cardi- 
nal principle  of  American  life,  whether  it  be  religious,  political, 
or  industrial. 

If  unions  are  to  render  permanent  service  to  the  laborers, 
they  must  be  voluntary  organizations.  If  any  device  can  be 
invented  by  employers  of  laborers  by  which  laborers  can  be 
coerced  into  joining  or  kept  from  joining  labor-unions,  then 
these  organizations  no  longer  represent  either  the  best  thought 


THE   CLOSED   SHOP  179 

or  the  best  interests  of  the  laborers.  They  must  necessarily  soon 
degenerate  into  mere  dictatorial  groups.  There  is  no  principle 
of  ethics,  economics,  or  equity  that  will  make  the  coercion  of 
laborers  by  laborers  any  better  than  the  coercion  of  laborers 
by  capitalists. 

Men  who,  as  victims  of  trade-union  despotism,  are  forced 
into  the  union,  would  prove  elements  of  weakness  and  prepare 
the  way  for  disintegration. 

Danger  of  Trade-Union  Power. — An  important  argument 
against  acceding  to  the  demands  of  trade-unionists  for  the 
closed  shop  is  the  danger  involved  in  granting  too  much  power 
to  the  labor  organizations. 

It  is  contended  that  it  would  be  highly  dangerous  to  allow  a 
permanent  and  all-inclusive  organization  of  laborers  to  control 
such  matters  as  admission  to  a  trade,  the  introduction  of  im- 
proved machinery,  and  the  rate  of  wages;  that  it  is  highly 
desirable  that  a  trade-union  should  always  be  kept  upon  its  good 
behavior  by  the  knowledge  that  an  unreasonable  or  selfiish  policy 
will  drive  both  employers  and  the  public  to  seek  relief  by  ap- 
pealing to  the  non-union  man. 

Injury  to  Business — It  is  claimed  that  the  open  shop  is 
necessary  in  order  to  preserve  the  liberty  and  protect  the 
rights  of  employers.  The  closed  shop  means  that  none  but  union 
men  shall  be  employed ;  that  the  foreman  shall  be  acceptable 
to  the  union  and,  therefore,  presumably  a  member  of  it;  that  the 
rules  of  the  work  shop  shall  be  made  by  the  unions ;  and  it  is 
claimed  that  all  this  practically  takes  the  management  of  the 
business  out  of  the  hands  of  the  employers  and  places  it  with 
those  who  lack  business  responsibility.  The  men  who  have  put 
their  capital  into  the  business  can  no  longer  control  their  own 
property,  but  are  practically  compelled  to  turn  it  over  to  the 
management  of  an  organization  which  deems  its  own  interests 
in  conflict  with  those  of  the  capitalists. 

The  closed  shop  would,  it  is  claimed,  be  injurious  to  business 
and  thus  disastrous  to  the  general  welfare  of  society : 

By  imposing  on  a  shop  where  there  is  no  dissatisfaction, 
the  liability  of  a  sympathetic  strike  or  of  a  strike  growing  out 
of  a  quarrel  with  some  other  union ; 

By  taking  the  management  out  of  the  hands  of  the  employers 
who  have  the  greatest  stake  in  the  business,  and  thus  inviting 
failure ; 

By  destroying  all  competition  between  good  and  poor  work- 


i8o  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

men,  and  thus  lowering  the  standard  of  skill   and  resulting  in 
an  inferior  product; 

By  destroying  all  competition  between  union  and  non-union 
men  and  enabling  the  unions  to  force  wages  up  to  a  point 
which  the  business  could  not  stand;  and,  with  a  higher  price 
for  a  poorer  product,  a  closed  shop  could  not  complete  with  es- 
tablishments  not   so   handicapped. 


WHAT  THE  OPEN   SHOP  DOES  ^ 

Los  Angeles  is  now  the  first  city  on  the  Pacific  Coast,  not 
only  in  population,  but  in  the  number  of  industries  and  the 
value  of  its  industrial  products.  The  Federal  census  of  1920 
shows  it  to  be  the  tenth  city  of  America  both  in  population  and 
industry.     How  has  this   come  to  pass? 

Los  Angeles  has  achieved  with  justice  the  repute  of  being 
the  freest  city  in  the  freest  land  under  the  sun.  It  is  not  a 
community  "where  wealth  accumulates  and  men  decay."  It  is 
the  city  of  opportunity,  where  the  right  to  work  is  as  indis- 
putable as  the  righf  to  leisure.  He  who  seeks  employment  is 
not  asked,  "Are  you  in  good  standing  with  your  union?  Have 
you  been  suspended  or  expelled  in  some  other  industrial  com- 
munity for  breaking  union  rules?"  but  "What  have  you  done, 
and  what  can  you  do?" 

Industrial  Los  Angeles  is  builded  on  principle,  a  principle 
as  old  as  civilization  itself;  it  is  the  right  of  every  individual 
to  work  where  he  pleases,  at  any  occupaton  he  elects,  and  for 
which  he  can  quahfy,  and  at  wages  which  are  mutually  accept- 
able to  him  and  his  employer.  Here  he  is  guaranteed  the  right 
to  labor,  the  right  to  possess  and  the  right  of  the  uninterrupted 
enjoyment  of  the  fruits  of  his  toil. 

For  a  generation  Los  Angeles  has  been  educating  her  youth 
to  the  open-shop  point  of  view,  so  that  now  it  is  as  character- 
istic and  ingrained  in  the  Los  Angeles  business  man  as  is  the 
closed  shop  viewpoint  of  a  San  Franciscan.  Each  city  has 
molded  itself  according  to  its  belief  and  each  city  draws  its 
own  kind.  Free  labor  and  labor  that  would  be  free  gravitates 
to  Los  Angeles  from  every  corner  of  America.  Union  labor 
and   those   that    stand    for   it    as   naturally   seek    San    Francisco. 

1  Editorial,  Los  Angeles  Times,  August  24,   1920. 


THE   CLOSED   SHOP  i8i 

Here  there  is  no  bitter  conflict  between  capital  and  labor. 
Most  shops  are  operated  under  the  wage  system.  It  is  the  sys- 
tem that  has  banished  from  industry  human  slavery,  the  only 
one  that  guarantees  the  independence  of  the  individual  and 
makes  community  life  tolerable  for  all  its  members. 

There  are  also  what  are  termed  "closed  shop"  industries 
where  only  persons  paying  dues  to  a  specified  union  and  obey- 
ing its  rules  and  regulations  can  secure  employment.  No  man 
who  has  been  suspended  from  a  branch  of  the  union,  in  any 
community,  for  any  cause,  can  be  employed,  irrespective  of  his 
ability,  his  need  of  employment  and  the  need  of  workmen.  In 
the  closed  shops  each  workman  is  told  by  a  business  agent 
of  the  union  what  hours  he  may  labor,  what  wages  he  must 
demand  and  when  he  shall  go  out  on  strike.  The  employer, 
like  the  workman,  is  at  the  mercy  of  the  walking  delegate. 
The  workman  ceases  to  be  a  free  agent,  the  industry  is  no  longer 
free;  human  servitude  has  been  reintroduced  under  a  new  dis- 
guise. 

The  spirit  of  industrial  freedom  which  animates  Los  Angeles 
makes  such  servitude  intolerable;  and  there  are  fewer  closed 
shops  here  than  in  any  other  community  of  equal  size  in  the 
country.  Yet  this  is  entirely  a  matter  of  personal  choice.  .Any 
employer  or  group  of  employers  can  operate  a  closed  shop.  •  The 
open  shop  industries  do  not  retaliate  by  refusing  employment 
to  men  carrying  union  cards.  There  is  no  opposition  to  work- 
men associating  together  in  any  organization  that  is  not  a 
menace  to  free  government  and  the  public  welfare.  Freedom 
of  choice,  however,  is  reserved  alike  to  employer  and  employe. 

Employment  in  Los  Angeles  is  not  dependent  upon  member- 
ship or  non-membership  in  any  labor  union ;  it  depends  upon 
the  initiative,  the  abiHty  and  the  industry  of  the  individual; 
and  the  wages  are  regulated  by  the  natural  law  of  supply  and 
demand. 

Such  are  the  conditions  under  which  Los  Angeles  has  grown 
to  be  one  of  the  great  industrial  cities  of  America;  under  which 
it  has  outstripped  twenty  other  American  cities  in  ten  years. 
That  they  are  satisfactory  to  labor  is  demonstrated  by  the  thou- 
sands of  expert  workmen  coming  here  yearly  from  communities 
where  industrial  freedom  is  comparatively  unknown.  A  new 
generation  of  workmen  is  growing  here  that  has  never  known 
the  thralldom  of  the  labor  unions;  but  the  great  majority  of 


i82  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

those  engaged  in  the  three  thousand  odd  industries  of  Los 
Angeles  have  been  at  one  time  members  of  labor  unions.  Some 
of  them  still  retain  their  membership;  but  most  have  found  it 
profitable  to  assert  their  independence  and  initiative  and  to 
devote  the  money  that  once  went  in  dues  to  the  union  to  paying 
for  a  bungalow  home. 

As  soon  as  it  became  known  that  there  were  competent  work- 
men in  Los  Angeles  to  operate  independent  industries  capital 
quickly  followed.  Government  statistics  show  that  the  average 
wage  paid  in  Los  Angeles  industrial  establishments  during  the 
last  ten  years  has  been  above  the  average  of  that  in  other  sec- 
tions of  the  country.  And  the  working  conditions  have  kept 
the  stream  of  expert  labor  flowing  to  Los  Angeles  at  a  flood 
tide.  Simultaneously  the  fame  of  Los  Angeles  as  the  leading 
open-shop  city  of  America  has  attracted  employers  and  indus- 
trial plants  of  the  first  importance.  As  the  number  of  workers 
has  grown  so  has  the  volume  of  work  for  them  to  do. 

If  Los  Angeles  is  to  retain  the  advantage  which  it  has  so 
hardly  bought  during  the  last  thirty  years  it  must  not  alone 
jealously  guard  the  open-shop  principle — it  must  continue  to 
demonstrate  by  results  that  the  open-shop  principle  is  the  best 
for  employer  and  employee  alike.  The  city  regularly  pays  a 
little  better  than  the  union  scale,  the  opportunities  for  advance- 
ment are  better,  living  conditions  are  more  desirable.  Our 
phenomenal  industrial  growth  is  the  natural  corollary  and  so 
long  as  the  causes  are  maintained  the  results  will  continue  to 
come  with  the  infallibility  of  a  mathematical  formula. 


THE  CLOSED  OR  OPEN  SHOP  ^ 

In  an  address  before  a  gathering  of  manufacturers,  profes- 
sional men  and  general  business  men  at  the  Hotel  Green,  Dan- 
bury,  Conn.,  Oct.  i,  Walter  Drew  of  New  York  City,  counsel 
for  the  National  Erectors'  Association,  made  a  strong  argu- 
ment for  the  open  shop.  He  based  the  consideration  of  the 
subject  at  this  time  on  the  fact  that  the  present  world  crisis 
has  brought  general  recognition  of  the  fundamental  importance 
of  industrial  questions,  on  which  the  fate  of  nations  is  now 
seen  to  rest. 

1  The  Iron  Age.     100:916,     October  11,   igi?- 


THE   CLOSED   SHOP  183 

"Since  industry  under  the  present  form  of  capitalistic  con- 
trol has  been  in  the  hand  of  the  employer,  he  must  share  res- 
ponsibility for  whatever  conditions  arise.  Upon  him,  also, 
rests  the  chief  responsibiUty  of  finding  a  solution.  That  solu- 
tion will  not  come  if  he  acts  selfishly.  He  must  seek  the 
common  good.  He  must  labor  to  establish  industry  upon  a 
sane,  wholesome  and  just  foundation,  and  he  must  co-operate 
with  those  who  are  working  to  these  ends.  He  must  consider 
himself,  not  as  merely  engaged  in  business  for  individual 
profit,  but  as  a  trustee  for  the  beneficial  use  of  the  forces  of 
production  that  he  controls. 

"This  viewpoint  of  the  employer's  duty  must  be  the  basis 
of  his  co-operation  with  other  employers.  No  association  of 
employers  will  endure  or  deserve  to  endure  which  is  founded 
upon  any  other  basis.  The  making  of  large  profits  for  the 
employer  can  no  longer  be  considered  the  sole  test  of  business 
success.  Industry  has  not  performed  its  functions  unless  it 
brings  betterment  of  conditions  and  increased  comforts  to  the 
worker  as  well  as  the  owner  and  unless  its  product  is  made 
available  to  the  general  public  at  prices  as  low  as  possible 
through  efficiency  and  unrestricted  production.  This  broad 
view  by  the  employer  as  a  working  principle  in  his  own  busi- 
ness and  in  his  association  with  other  employers  is  not  altru- 
ism but  is  being  found  to  be  a  sound,  constructive  business 
philosophy." 

To-day,  Mr.  Drew  said,  the  foremost  labor  question  in  this 
country  is  that  of  the  closed  shop,  or  a  shop  where  only  un- 
ion men  are  employed  and  where  non-union  men  are  exclud- 
ed. A  nation-wide  effort  to  extend  the  closed  shop  in  our  in- 
dustries, taking  advantage  of  our  war-time  necessities,  is  be- 
ing made.  Every  community  and  every  industry  faces  this  is- 
sue. Mr.  Drew  then  proceeded  dispassionately  and  with  a 
complete  avoidance  of  harsh  criticism  to  discuss  the  closed- 
shop  problem  from  the  standpoint  of  the  union  man,  showing 
by  logical  steps  how  finally  the  immense  power  of  the  closed 
shop  union  and  its  members  over  industry  is  exercised  without 
penalty  or  responsibility  in  case  of  mistake,  abuse  or  bad 
faith.  This  condition,  he  said,  is  unique  and  is  not  found  in 
any  other  department   of  the  business  world. 

"The  weaknesses  of  the  closed  shop,  its  failure  as  an  in- 
dustrial institution,  are  due  not  so  much  to  bad  faith,  or  vic- 
ious conduct,  or  any  unworthy  motive  on  the  part  of  the  union 


i84  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

man,  as  to  his  limited  and  short-sighted  viewpoint,  his  lack  of 
understanding  of  economic  principles  and  forces,  his  tendency 
to  seek  the  apparent  and  immediate  benefit,  and  his  failure  to 
understand  and  to  seek  the  ultimate  good.  And  in  all  this 
he  is  human,  and  his  counterpart  in  varying  degree  is  found 
among  all  of  us. 

"If  a  grocer  mismanage  his  business  through  ignorance  or 
shortsightedness,  he  fails  and  another  grocer  takes  his  place. 
So  it  is  with  the  business  man  generally.  Each  pays  the  pen- 
alty for  his  lack  of  ability,  and  his  failure,  while  it  may  affect 
others,  still  does  not  amount  to  a  general  catastrophe.  If  all 
the  manufacturers  of  a  given  industry,  however,  should  act 
together  on  lines  that  were  ill-conceived  and  fundamentally 
unsound,  then  disaster  to  the  whole  industry  would  follow. 
These  same  things  are  ever  more  true  of  the  worker.  If  all 
the  workers  of  an  industry,  or  a  community,  or  a  nation  share 
erroneous  ideas  which  form  the  basis  of  their  philosophy  and 
which  they  are  able  to  carry  out  into  actual  and  general  prac- 
tice, the  degree  of  the  injury  to  the  industry,  the  community, 
or  the  nation  will  be  measured  by  the  degree  and  extent  of 
the  error.  *Since  productive  industry  rests  upon  labor,  there 
will  be  no  alleviating  influences ;  the  error  will  work  its  full 
damage  and  whatever  disaster   follows  will  be   general." 

After  discussing  the  well-known  methods  practised  by 
closed-shop  workers  to  decrease  output,  to  compel  the  employ- 
ment of  more  men  to  do  a  given  piece  of  work  and  generally 
to  make  labor  scarce,  Mr.  Drew  gave  some  chapters  of  British 
industrial  history,  showing  how  the  progressive  control  of 
practically  all  industry  in  Great  Britain  by  closed-shop  unions 
had  reduced  that  country  at  the  outbreak  of  the  present  war 
to  such  a  state  of  general  inefficiency  as  to  be  totally  unable 
to  meet  the  exigencies  of  the  situation.  He  showed  how  the 
problem  of  increasing  industrial  efficiency  was  met  and  solved 
by  the  setting  aside  of  hard  and  fast  union  rules  and  now,  he 
said,  "most  significant  to  us  in  facing  our  present  problems, 
we  find  the  principles  of  the  open  shop  agreed  to  and  put  in- 
to operation  as  the  only  way  of  bringing  British  industry  to  a 
state  of  efficiency  where  it  can  meet  the  national  crisis."  He 
added : 

"We  find  England  with  hundreds  of  thousands  of  women 
and  non-union  men  working  side  by  side  with  union  men,  with 


THE   CLOSED    SJIOP  185 

old  restrictive  rules  laid  aside,  or  at  least  modified,  with  new 
methods,  new  machinery  and  new  spirit,  performing  industrial 
miracles,  although  England  still  faces  the  serious  problems  of 
peace  readjustments  over  which  hangs  the  shadow  of  the  na- 
tional solidarity  of  skilled  labor.  If  England  found  the  open 
shop  a  national  necessity  in  the  time  of  her  greatest  crisis, 
shall  we,  in  our  time  of  need,  extend  in  our  industries  the. 
system  which  brought  her  to  the  edge  of  ruin?" 

It  may  be  said,  continued  Mr.  Drew,  that  we  do  not  have  ■ 
in  this  country  the  restriction  of  output  practised  in  Great 
Britain.  The  explanation  is  simple.  The  great  bulk  of  our 
industries  are  open  shop.  In  a  recent  official  report  as  to  the 
conditions  in  our  industries,  made  to  the  Secretary  of  War,  it 
was  pointed  out  that  practically  90  per  cent  of  the  establish- 
ments that  would  be  called  upon  in  the  work  of  war  prepara- 
tion were  open  shops.  Our  national  industrial  efficiency,  our 
prosperity,  our  expanding  foreign  trade  and  commerce,  the 
high  wages  of  our  workmen,  doubling  and  even  trebling  those 
of  any  other  nation — all  find  their  foundation  in  open-shop  in- 
dustry. He  concluded  his  address  with  a  narration  of  closed- 
shop  experience  in  this  country  and  its  inevitable  handicapping 
of  industry,  urging  the  unions  to  use  their  power  and  influence 
not  to  decrease  the  supply  of  labor  but  rather  to  increase  the 
demand   for  it. 


THE  CLOSED  SHOP  IS  OPPOSED  TO  HUMAN 
DEVELOPMENT ' 

Recent  developments  in  the  strike  situation,  so  far  as  it 
affects  the  entire  question  of  the  port  of  New  York,  show  very 
plainly  that  the  whole  controversy,  in  fact  the  real  issue,  is  that 
of  the  open  or  closed  shop.  The  old  controversies  concerning 
hours  of  work,  wages,  collective  bargaining,  relations  between 
employers  and  the  unions,  are  subordinated  to  the  most  funda- 
mental fact  of  all — that  of  the  absolute  irresponsible  dictatorship 
of  a  few  men  (usually  of  foreign  birth),  who  desire  to  run 
labor  in  this  country  on  the  basis  of  the  class  struggle  of  Con- 
tinental Europe.     With  the  closed  shop,  they  can  dictate  con- 

1  Open   Shop   Review.     17:292-4.    July,    1920. 


i86  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

ditions  absolutely,  and  not  from  the  standpoint  of  the  good  of 
the  public  in  general,  but  from  that  of  their  own  selfish  desires 
and  interests.  They  forget  that  the  whole  basis  of  American 
democracy  is  that  of  absolute  denial  of  class  interests,  and  the 
subordination  of  each  to  the  good  of  all.  Their  own  view  would 
seem  to  be,  that  provided  labor  and  capital,  employer  and  em- 
ploye, are  in  two  mutually  hostile  groups,  the  go-betweens  can 
dominate.  Their  labor  leaders  and  other  walking  delegates  then 
can  act  as  these  go-betweens,  and  to  their  own  power  and  profit. 

Not  only  is  their  own  attitude  un-American,  but  so  also  is 
the  closed  shop.  In  addition,  this  same  principle  of  the  closed 
shop  is  essentially  undemocratic  and  opposed  to  the  whole  course 
of  human  development.  It  takes  very  little  acquaintance  with 
recorded  human  history  to  realize  that  the  progress  of  the  world 
always  has  been  conditioned  upon  the  overthrow  of  the  principle 
of  the  closed  shop  in  each  and  every  walk  of  life.  Ancient 
history  is  the  story  of  the  racial  closed  shop  and  the  struggle  of 
mankind  to  overthrow  it.  The  Middle  Ages  witnessed  the  same 
struggle,  but  under  two  more  special  forms.  First  of  all,  there 
was  the  feudal  system,  with  its  restraints  based  upon  land  hold- 
ing and  nobility  of  blood.  It  was  a  closed  shop  in  every  sense, 
and  when  the  merchant  guilds  began  to  break  through  the  bar- 
riers they  fell  into  the  same  position.  Their  attempt  to  estab- 
lish the  closed  shop  as  regarded  their  own  interests  broke  upon 
the  rock  of  human  differences  in  mind,  ability  and  endeavor, 
and  they  went  to  the  wall.  Also  the  same  thing  appeared  in 
religion,  and  the  doctrine  of  exclusive  salvation  brought  on  the 
religious  wars  and  persecutions  that  lasted  for  centuries.  This 
doctrine  was  not  peculiar  to  any  one  church  or  creed,  but  was 
universally  accepted  until  comparatively  recent  times.  Religious 
toleration  and  freedom,  the  great  contribution  of  our  early 
American  history,  forever,  we  believe,  broke  the  power  of  the 
closed  shop  in  religion.  The  closed  shop  of  feudalism  first  was 
broken  in  Great  Britain  and  the  American  colonies,  then  in 
France,  and  the  last  five  years  have  seen  the  final  blows  that 
probably  will  eliminate  it  throughout  the  civilized  world. 

Puring  the  past  two  centuries  we  have  seen  the  consumma- 
tion of  the  victory  over  the  closed  shop  in  government.  The 
history  of  England,  from  Magna  Charta  to  the  Parliamentary 
Reform  bill  of  191 1  and  the  legislation  of  the  last  two  years, 
have  been   the   storv  of   the  overthrow  of  the   closed   shop  in 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  187 

politics.  Our  own  American  experience  has  been  the  same.  Few 
people  stop  to  realize  that  Hamilton  believed  in  government  for 
the  people;  later  Jefferson  extended  it  to  government  of  the 
people;  but  it  only  became  government  by  the  people  in  the  days 
of  Andrew  Jackson,  when  manhood  suffrage  first  became  gen- 
eral throughout  the  Union.  That  is  to  say,  we  enunciated  the 
ideal  principles  of  equality  before  the  law  and  in  all  fields  of 
opportunity,  but  could  only  gradually  realize  it  after  further 
years  of  a  struggle  which  is  not  yet  entirely  complete  today. 
Progress  never  comes  easily  and  by  revolution,  which  at  best 
merely  clears  the  ground.  It  comes  only  as  a  result  of  hard, 
gruelling  work  and  as  the  fruit  of  a  process  of  education  and 
evolution. 

Just  in  proportion  as  the  principle  of  the  closed  shop  has 
prevailed  in  any  and  every  line  of  human  endeavor,  just  in  the 
same  proportion  has  there  been  decay,  stagnation  and  final 
destruction.  If  the  labor  leaders  succeed  in  forcing  this  princi- 
ple in  the  harbor  of  New  York  they  will  attempt  the  same 
thing  elsewhere.  It  leads  directly  to  the  "dictatorship  of  the 
proletariat,"  and  dictatorship  never  meant  democracy.  It  is 
time  that  the  people  of  the  country  at  large  as  well  as  those  of 
New  York  should  understand  clearly  just  what  is  involved  in 
the  present  struggle. 

It  is  not  one  of  hostility  to  the  unions  or  the  right  of  the 
men  to  organize.  It  is  the  question  of  the  independence,  social 
and  economic,  of  the  laboring  man  himself  and,  in  fact,  of  every 
individual  in  this  nation  at  large.  Neither  capital  nor  labor, 
employer  or  employe,  has  the  right  to  dictate  to  the  mass  of  the 
people  of  the  United  States.  It  is  necessary  to  break  the  power 
of  any  special  class  or  interests,  and  thus  we  are  probably  at  as 
critical  a  point  of  development  as  ever  has  been  met  and  passed 
in  our  history. 

Also  it  should  be  noted  that  the  person  who  will  suffer  above 
all  others  if  the  labor  leaders  win  is  the  individual  laboring  man 
himself.  He  may  seem  to  profit  for  a  while,  but  once  recognize 
the  principle  of  the  closed  shop  in  any  one  field  or  walk  of  life 
and  it  will  inevitably  come  in  all.  What  is  sauce  for  the  goose 
is  sauce  for  the  sadder.  In  proportion  as  this  principle  grows 
and  is  successful  will  this  country  become  undemocratic,  unfair 
in  law  and  society  and  un-American.  Injustice  is  a  two-edged 
sword  which  always  destroys  him  who  wields  it. 


i88  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

THE  CLOSED  SHOP— THE  UN-AMERICAN 
PLAN' 

The  closed  shop  requires  labor  to  bargain  collectively  through 
agents  of  their  own  choice,  but  denies  the  right  to  bargain 
any  other  way. 

The  closed  shop  policy  arrogates  the  power,  and  not  the 
right  to  bargain  collectively,  and  instead  o£  bargaining,  attempts 
to  dictate  the  terms  to  employers,  with  threatened  strikes  exer- 
cised as  a  power  of  coercion. 

Under  the  closed  shop  policy  the  leaders  of  the  unions  under- 
take to  speak  for  all  labor  in  their  respective  classes,  and  attempt 
to  restrict  all  labor  performed  to  union  members. 

Under  the  closed  shop  policy  all  workmen  not  members  of 
a  union  would  be  deprived  of  employment,  if  the  union  leaders 
could  accomplish  their  purpose.  , 

Under  the  closed  shop  policy  consistent  and  successful  efforts 
are  made  to  decrease  the  output  of  labor  and  increase  the  cost 
of  production  without  a  compensating  return  accruing  to  the 
w^orkmen,  thus  increasing  the  high  cost  of  living. 

Under  the  closed  shop  and  restricted  output  of  labor  the 
cost  of  building  material  and  construction  has  been  doubled,  and 
high  rents  have  been  made  possible  and  perhaps  necessary  for 
all  time  to  come. 

Under  the  closed  shop  policy  and  decreased  production  of 
labor,  higher  wages  have  been  enforced  in  the  trades,  the  mills 
and  factories,  and  many  men  are  leaving  the  farm,  with  the 
inevitable  consequence  of  under-production  of  farm  products 
and   foodstuffs.     Result :   increased  cost  of  living. 

Under  the  closed  shop  and  restricted  production,  farmers 
are  forced  to  pay  more  for  machinery,  farm  implements,  supplies 
and  labor.  Under-production  of  farm  products  and  foodstuffs, 
must  follow  or  prices  be  advanced — or  both. 


FREE  SHOPS  FOR  FREE  MEN  ^ 

The    recent    rapid    increase    of    membership    in    labor   unions 
has  brought  to   the   front    the    demand    for    a    "union    shop," 

1  New   Sky  Line.     1:3,     March  6,    1920. 

2  William   H.    Pfahler.     American    Economic   Association.     Proceedings- 
4:182-9.     1903. 


THE  CLOSED   SHOP  189 

which  is  being  forced  upon  the  employer  whenever  and  where- 
cver  he  is  too  weak  to  resist  it.  The  manufacturer  or  employer 
of  labor  who  resists  this  demand  is  said  to  have  an  "open 
shop" ;  and  it  is  well  to  consider  this  feature  of  the  struggle 
between  employer  and  employee,  with  regard  to  the  conditions 
created,  but  without  sentiment  or  sympathy  for  either  side. 
An  "open  shop"  is  a  term  quite  common  among  employers,  but 
it  would  have  no  significance  were  it  not  for  this  demand  of 
the  labor  union  to  close  the  shop  to  all  but  union  men  and  to 
prevent  the  employer  from  hiring  free  men  who  prefer  to  con- 
trol the  sale  of  their  own  labor  according  to  its;  value,  rather 
than  at  a  price  fixed  by  a  body  of  men  whose  purpose  is  to 
create  a  standard  of  wages  based  upon  the  ability  of  the  in- 
competent workman,  or  more  frequently  upon  the  emergency 
existing  at  the  time  such  wages  are  fixed.  The  union  claims 
that  the  efficient  or  skilled  workman  will  always  receive  more 
than  the  standard  wage:  and  while  this  may  be  true  so  long 
as  there  is  one  more  workman  in  any  craft  than  is  required, 
when  the  condition  changes  so  that  there  is  a  surplus  of  men, 
the  incompetent  is  discharged,  the  wage  of  the  skilled  man  is 
reduced  to  the  standard  which  was  fixed  on  a  false  basis,  and 
often  even  lower  than  that,  while  the  place  of  the  incompetent 
workman  is  supplanted  by  machinery. 

It  is  for  this  economic  reason  that  a  very  large  number  of 
the  best  mechanics  refuse  to  join  the  union,  preferring  to  re- 
main free  men  until  forced  by  "persuasion,"  which  is  the  only 
means  allowed  by  the  laws  of  the  union,  but  which  may  be 
physical  if  moral  will  not  answer  the  purpose.  The  last  resort 
of  the  union  in  this  direction  is  to  demand  a  union  shop,  so 
that  the  employer,  by  refusing  employment  to  a  free  man,  or 
by  discharging  such  a  man  if  he  continue  to  refuse  to  join  the 
union,   shall   assist  them   in   their  persuasive   purposes. 

It  is  this  action  on  the  part  of  the  union  that  compels  the 
employer  who  prefers,  in  the  purchase  of  labor,  to  make  no 
distinction  as  to  his  employees  other  than  such  as  follow  nat- 
jaral  laws  to  contend  for  an  "open  shop,"  often  at  great  cost 
and  severe  loss  to  himself,  and  to  maintain  that  condition,  re- 
gardless of  the  union  demand.  That  he  is  right  in  doing  so 
cannot  be  questioned ;  it  is  the  true  American  condition  that 
evcTy  man  shall  be  free  to  seek  employment  wherever  and  un- 
der   whatsoever    conditions    he    may    prefer,    without    regard    to 


IQO  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

his  politics,  his  religion,  or  his  affiliation  with  organizations 
based  on  principles  which  he  cannot  endure. 

The  opposition  to  the  labor  union  to-day  is  not  the  objec- 
tion to  organized  labor,  but  the  objection  to  the  methods  em- 
ployed by  unions  to  force  conditions  and  create  ideals  con- 
ceived frequently  without  due  knowledge  of  existing  facts,  and 
especially  objection  to  the  secrecy  in  which  all  their  plans  are 
made  and  executed.  The  opposition  of  the  employer  to  labor 
unions  does  not  arise  from  any  desire  to  prevent  the  accom- 
plishment of  their  efforts  towards  the  improvement  of  the 
condition  of  the  workingman;  the  intelligent  employer  knows 
full  well  that  the  highest  efficiency  can  be  attained  only  by 
such  improved  conditions.  He  does  object,  however,  to  the 
attempt  of  the  union  to  sustain  in  secret,  by  approval  and  ap- 
plause, unlawful  acts  on  the  part  of  its  individual  members, 
even  though  these  acts  are  in  public  denounced  and  claimed  to 
be  contrary  to  the  laws  of  the  union. 

I  have  yet  to  find  a  rule  of  any  union  which  provides  for 
the  punishment  or  expulsion  of  a  member  because  of  any 
criminal  act  that  he  may  commit,  even  though  convicted  be- 
fore a  jury,  if  such  act  has  been  exercised  against  an  employer 
who  has  refused  to  grant  the  demands  formulated  by  the 
union  in  secret  conclave.  On  the  other  hand  I  do  know  of 
cases  where  the  union,  out  of  funds  contributed  by  the  mem- 
bership, has  paid  fines  of  large  amounts  inflicted  upon  its 
members  by  courts  before  whom  they  have  been  convicted  for 
crime  committed  against  the  employer  or  against  some  free 
man  who  refused  to  remain  idle  at  their  dictation. 

Another  mistake  of  labor  unions  is  that  they  endeavor  to 
think  and  work  along  one  line  only— that  is,  to  define  and  de- 
mand the  rights,  as  they  conceive  them,  of  the  workingman, 
but  never  attempt  to  define  his  duties;  to  define  and  demand 
the  pay  of  the  working-man,  but  never  to  define  the  equiva- 
lent in  labor  he  shall  furnish  for  such  pay.  This  is  the  fact 
to  such  a  great  extent  that  the  employer  can  very  easily  see 
in  the  action  of  the  union  the  embodiment  of  the  sentiment 
and  the  so-called  principle  which  cause  it  to  say,  or  at  least 
to  imply  by  its  actions,  that  the  employer  has  no  right  which 
the  union  is  bound  to  respect. 

I  have  outlined  these  conditions  of  the  labor  unions  as 
they  exist  and  are  presented  to  the  employer  that  I  may  more 
clearly  give  you  his  reason   for   opposing  the  union   shop   and 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  191 

refusing  to  become  a  party  to  the  attempt  to  create  such  con- 
ditions, while  at  the  same  time  he  may  be  in  favor  of  organ- 
ized labor  and  not  only  ready  but  anxious  to  confer  at  all 
times  with  its  representatives  upon  any  subject  which  is  with- 
in its  jurisdiction  and  the  consideration  of  which  will  result 
in  mutual  benefit  to  employer  and  employee. 

The  difference  between  a  union  shop  and  an  open  shop  can 
be  clearly  defined  as  a  difference  in  management.  In  the  un- 
ion shop  the  union,  without  invitation,  with  no  endorsement  as 
to  its  qualifications,  for  no  ostensible  reason  except  to  exercise 
accidental  power,  attempts  to  limit  the  owner  or  employer  in 
the  exercise  of  his  rights  and  judgment  as  to  the  proper  use 
of  that  which  is  his  and  to  put  the  workingman  under  the 
dictation  of  a  walking  delegate  or  shop  committee.  The  open 
shop,  on  the  contrary,  is  free  to  all,  to  the  union  man  as  well 
as  to  the  non-union  man,  and  places  no  restrictions  on  the  em- 
ployee which  he  is  bound  to  accept. 

In  no  case  with  which  I  am  familiar  has  the  demand  for 
a  union  shop  been  accompanied  by  a  proposition  for  benefit 
to  the  employer,  except  perhaps  that  he  may,  by  conceding  to 
the  demand,  hope  to  avoid  the  persecution  of  the  local  union 
to  which  his  men  belong.  On  the  other  hand  the  change  from 
an  open  shop  to  a  union  shop  gives  the  union  entire  control. 
And  if  the  members  in  secret  conclave  decide,  because  of  a 
hot-headed  leader,  to  enforce  a  rule  in  the  shop  which  is  un- 
wise, unfair  and  detrimental  to  the  interests  of  the  employer, 
the  ultimatum  is  a  strike,  the  closing  of  the  shop,  and  loss  in 
time,  money,  and  often  property.  Is  there  any  wonder  that 
the  employer  elects  to  have  the  strike  which  preserves  his  lib- 
erty, rather  than  that  which  must  be  made  to  restore  his 
liberty? 

The  demand  for  the  union  shop  presents  to  the  employer 
the  following  dangers  which  are  incorporated  in  the  written 
or  unwritten  laws  of  almost  every  labor  union:  (i)  The  sur- 
render of  the  privilege  of  selecting  his  employees  to  a  com- 
mittee who  recognize  no  standard  of  efficiency  but  membership 
in  the  union.  "No  card,  no  work"  is  the  rule.  (2)  The* nec- 
essity of  discharging  old  and  faithful  employees  who  claim 
to  be  free  men  and  who  refuse  to  join  the  union.  (3)  The  dis- 
charge of  thf  foreman  or  the  superintendent  who,  in  the  per- 
formance of  his  duties,  may  have  offended  the  walking  dele- 
gate or  shop  committee.    (4)    The  limitation  of   apprentices  to 


192  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

a  ratio  established  by  the  union  in  many  cases  fifty  years  or 
more  ago  and  retained  in  force  regardless  of  any  change  in 
conditions  or  requirements.  (5)  The  opposition  to  the  intro- 
duction of  labor-saving  machines,  designed  iu  most  cases  to 
reheve  the  skilled  man  from  the  strain  of  labor  and  to  in- 
crease his  efficiency  with  reduced  energies,  as  well  as  to  in- 
crease production  in  ratio  to  the  wants  of  an  increased  popu- 
lation and  to  reduce  the  cost  to  the  consumer.  (6)  The  limi- 
tation of  the  earning  capacity  of  the  industrious  and  ambitious 
workingman  to  the  standard  of  the  lazy  and  incompetent. 
(7)  The  obstruction  to  every  plan  of  premiums  or  promotion 
which  may  encourage  a  workingman  to  increase  his  skill  and 
better  his  condition.  (8)  The  Hmitation  of  output  by  every 
means  in  the  power  of  the  union,  on  the  principle  that  if  every 
man  will  do  less  there  will  be  more  for  every  other  man  to 
do. 

I  am  sure  that  the  leaders  in  labor  movements  will  prompt- 
ly deny  that  the  union  stands  for  anything  that  I  have  enu- 
merated; and  I  am  willing  to  admit  that  some  of  them  with 
whom  I  have  had  negotiations  are  opposed  to  every  unlawful 
or  unwise  action  of  the  union  over  which  they  preside,  and 
have  denounced  such  acts  as  freely  as  I  do;  but  they  can  not, 
or  will  not,  exercise  the  power  to  prevent  them,  because  un- 
der the  unwritten  laws  they  are  considered  fair  and  right.  A 
noted  economist  has  well  said,  "without  impugning  motives  of 
leaders  or  factors  who  have  brought  them  about,  it  is  widely 
felt  that  the  mere  existence  of  vast  consolidations,  whether 
of  men,  money  or  power,  has  in  it  the  possibility  of  mischiev- 
ous, if  not  disastrous  results,  and  the  impulse  to  restrain  them 
by  law  is  undoubtedly  growing  and  will  ere  long  bear  fruit." 

One  of  the  greatest  mistakes  of  labor  unions,  as  shown  in 
the  demand  for  a  union  shop,  is  the  belief  that  the  present 
rapid  increase  in  numbers  is  an  endorsement  of  the  principles 
and  acts  of  the  union  ;  but  in  this  I  am  sure  that  the  leaders 
are  mistaken,  because  in  times  like  the  present  the  idea  of  con- 
solidation or  co-operation  to  secure  any  purpose  is  rampant, 
and  men  flock  to  any  standard,  whether  right  or  wrong,  if  it 
suggests  a  change  and  promises  future  benefit  in  loud  tones, 
just  as  millions  ot  voters  a  few  years  ago  followed  the  lead 
of  a  man  who  would  have  wrecked  the  entire  financial  condi- 
tion of  the  country,   followed  him  because  he  went  thundering 


THE   CLOSEP    SllOr  193 

through  the  land  telling  the  workingmen  that  free  silver  was 
the  change  they  needed  to  improve  their  condition.  The  real 
liard  fact  as  seen  daily  by  t,he  employer  is  that  the  numerical 
strength  of  most  unions  is  in  ratio  to  the  force  employed  in 
recruiting,  rather  than  to  free  will  on  the  part  of  those  who 
join.  Thousands  of  good  honest  workmen  join  the  union  to 
purchase  at  a  small  cost  freedom  from  insults — to  protect 
their  families  from  ostracism  and  themselves  from  bodily  in- 
jury. In  addition  to  this,  many  more  thousands  are  driven  in- 
to the  union  by  the  unwise  actions  of  employers  who  deny  the 
right  of  labor  to  organize  for  its  own  benefit  and  who  refuse 
to  confer  with  employees  or  their  representatives  upon  such 
questions  as  may  be  of  benefit  or  mutual  interest.  The  very 
best  recruiting  agent  for  labor  unions  to-day  is  the  proud,  de- 
fiant egotistic  employer  or  accidental  corporation  manager  who 
shouts  continually,   "I  have  nothing  to  arbitrate." 

I  make  these  statements  from  an  employer's  standpoint, 
based  upon  practical  observation ;  and  if  I  am  wrong  in  any 
particular,  it  is  because  of  the  secrecy  with  which  unions  are 
conducted.  Until  that  secrecy  is  removed  they  must  be  con- 
tent to  be  measured  by  the  things  they  do,  and  not  by  what 
they  profess  to  do.  I  make  these  statements,  not  as  the  enemy 
of  organized  labor,  but  as  its  warmest  supporter.  I  also  ad- 
vocate organization  of  employers,  and  gladly  see  such  organ- 
izations springing  into  existence.  The  earliest  associations  of 
manufacturers  were  formed  for  "defense  against  the  unjust 
demands  of  labor  unions."  To-day  the  object  is  to  promote 
just  and   equitable   dealings  between   employer   and  employees. 

When  these  great  organizations  of  employers  on  one  side 
and  employees  on  the  other  meet  to  contest  their  supposed 
rights  or  carefully  formed  demands,  they  will  be  compelled  to 
recognize  that  greater  organization,  the  American  public,  which 
is  determined  that  contests  of  this  nature  shall  be  settled  with 
deference  to  its  rights,  and  that  future  attempts  to  stop  the 
wheels  of  progress  shall  meet  the  fate  they  deserve. 

I  favor  organization.  Having  been  closely  in  touch  with 
progress  along  these  lines,  I  feel  sure  that  the  day  is  near  at 
hand  when  labor  leaders  who  stand  for  justice  and  equity  be- 
tween employer  and  employee  will  have  the  honest  support  of 
all  employers.  The  result  will  be  a  union  shop  for  which  no 
demand   need  be   made,   a   union    shop  which   means   union   l-)e- 


194  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

tween  capital  and  labor,  which  means  harmony  and  profit  for 
both;  but  more  than  that,  a  unity  which  by  its  combined  co- 
operation will  conquer  for  this  country  the  markets  of  the 
world. 

BRIEF    EXCERPTS 

A  full  year  without  a  strike  is  a  pretty  good  record  for  the 
open  shop  in  Little  Rock  building  trades.  No  community  in 
the  United  States  operating  under  the  closed  shop  can  show 
a  better  record,  and  few  as  good.— New  Sky  Line  1:2  Jan.  28, 
1921. 

Employment  managers  feel  that  the  closed  shop  tends  to 
negative  scientific  methods  of  employment  management.  The 
unions  maintain  preferential  lists  from  which  an  employer 
virtually  must  make  replacements  when  vacancies  occur.  Thus, 
the  employer  is  without  freedom  .  of  choice  in  selecting  his 
employees. — Industrial  Digest.     1:3.     July   24,   ig20. 

The  end  of  1920  came  without  a  reduction  in  the  wage  scale 
in  the  building  trades  in  Little.  Rock,  and  yet  under  open  shop 
conditions  the  number  of  hours  of  labor  required  to  erect  build- 
ings of  state  specifications  was  materially  reduced,  to  the  end 
that  building  costs  were  lessened  and  money  saved  to  the 
builders  under  the  open  shop  plan. — Neiv  Sky  Line  1:2  Jan. 
28,  1921. 

The  closed  shop  is,  so  far  as  the  employer  is  concerned, 
industrial  slavery,  and  the  managers  of  the  union  are  slave- 
drivers.  If  a  man  is  forcibly  obliged  to  employ  only  those 
persons  who  are  selected  for  him  by  an  organization  of  which 
he  is  not  a  member  and  over  which  he  has  no  control,  he  is  to 
that  extent  the  slave  of  that  organization. — Everett  P.  Wheeler. 
Survey.     27:1650.     January  27,  igi2. 

Reports  made  by  the  National  Founders  Association  indicate 
a  marked  decrease  in  the  number  of  strikes  in  the  foundries  of 
the  United  States,  and  a  noteworthy  increase  in  the  plants  oper- 
ating on  the  open  shop  basis.  A  year  ago,  46  foundries  had  to 
combat  strikes,  and  during  the  past  year  the  Association  ,assisted 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  195 

in  contesting  28  strikes.  Of  the  total  of  74  shops  involved,  54 
now  are  working  on  an  open  shop  basis,  while  in  the  other  20, 
strikes  are  gradually  wearing  out. — Industrial  Digest.  i:l. 
December  4,  1920. 

Has  Henry  Ford's,  open  shop  policy  ground  and  crushed 
labor?  Has  the  open  shop  automobile  industry  made  slaves 
of  its  employes?  Is  Detroit  the  home  of  the  helpless  and  the 
down-trodden?  Is  Indianapolis,  the  open  shop  city,  the  home  of 
hungry,  ragged  and  cowed  workingmen?  Are  the  employes  of 
the  Buffalo  Commercial  and  the  Los  Angeles  Times  underpaid 
serfs?  Are  the  members  of  the  British  open  shop  unions  mere 
slaves  of  capitalists? — Daily  Commercial  News  (San  Francisco). 
December  21,  i<)20. 

The  recent  expose  in  New  York  City  of  an  alliance  for 
graft  between  certain  union  leaders  and  building  contractors 
strongly  emphasizes  the  undoubted  menace  of  the  closed  shop 
to  legitimate  industrial  development.  The  calling  of  strikes 
for  the  purpose  of  extortion,  and  the  banding  together  of  un- 
scrupulous union  leaders  and  employers  in  efforts  to  eliminate 
free  and  honest  competition  are  evils  impossible  under  the 
open  shop  plan  of  employment. — Industry  2:1.  November  i, 
1920. 

Under  the  rules  of  the  unions,  the  worker  is  given  a  day's 
stint.  This  is  placed  so  low  as  to  be  reached  by  the  worker 
of  less  than  ordinary  skill.  But  there  also  seems  to  be  a  limit 
upon  the  maximum  amount  of  labor  that  the  worker  shall  per- 
form in  a  day.  This  is  so  low  that  the  skilled  worker  would 
be  able  easily  to  excel  it  if  he  so  desired.  The  claim  that  it 
exists  is  based  upon  comparison  of  output  in  recent  years  com- 
pared with  that  of  prior  years. 

Any  restriction  of  the  individual  output  of  the  worker  dis- 
courages attempts  to  acquire  skill  beyond  the  point  at  which 
the  limit  is  placed.  This  degree  of  skill  attained,  degeneration 
sets  in.  The  worker,  sure  of  attaining  the  limit,  becomes  care- 
less. His  work  grows  faulty,  and  therefore  more  costly,  as  it 
is  always  more  costly  to  remedy  poor  work  than  it  would  have 
been  to  do  it  right  in  the  beginning. — Editorial.  Rochester,  N.Y. 
Post-Express.     November  20,  IQ20. 


196  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

The  closed  union  shop  seems  to  us  to  be  inconsistent  with 
the  principles  of  the  American  constitution,  because  it  permits 
a  condition  where  an  employee  who  does  not  belong  to  a  un- 
ion has  no  hope  of  finding  employment.  In  tact,  if  closed  un- 
ion shops  become  universal,  it  is  conceivable  that  a  skilled 
workman  capable  and  willing  to  work  might  become  a  public 
charge  because  of  the  refusal  to  admit  him  to  the  union.  Sim- 
ilar conditions  would  prevail  in  the  closed  non-union  shop  for 
the  employee  who  belonged  to  a  union.  From  the  standpoint 
of  the  public  interests,  we  believe  that  neither  a  closed  union 
shop  nor  a  closed  non-union  shop  should  be  permitted  even 
when  the  employees  and  the  employer  of  the  establishments 
agree  to  it. — Cleveland  Chamber  of  Commerce.  Industry  2:11. 
October  i,   1920. 

The  union  must  not  undertake  to  assume,  or  to  interfere 
with,  the  management  of  the  business  of  the  employer.  It 
should  strive  to  make  membership  in  it  so  valuable  as  to  attract 
all  who  are  ehgible,  but  in  its  efforts  to  build  itself  up,  it  must 
not  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  those  who  may  think  differently 
have  certain  rights  guaranteed  them  by  our  free  government. 
However  irritating  it  may  be  to  see  a  man  enjoy  benefits  to  the 
securing  of  which  he  refuses  to  contribute,  either  morally,  or 
physically,  or  financially,  the  fact  that  he  has  a  right  to  dispose 
of  his  personal  services  as  he  chooses,  cannot  be  ignored.  The 
non-union  man  assumes  the  whole  responsibility  which  results 
from  his  being  such,  but  his  right  and  privilege  of  being  a  non- 
union man  are  sanctioned  in  law  and  morals.  The  rights  and 
privileges  of  non-union  men  are  as  sacred  to  them  as  the  rights 
and  privileges  of  unionists.  The  contention  that  a  majority  of 
the  employees  in  an  industry,  by  voluntarily  associating  them- 
selves, in  a  union,  acquire  authority  over  those  who  do  not  so 
associate  themselves  is  untenable. — Report  of  the  Anthracite 
Coal  Strike  Commission,     p.  64. 

There  can  be  no  real  collective  bargaining  in  a  closed  shop, 
for  the  parties  do  not  stand  upon  an  equal  footing.  There  is 
only  a  demand  and  a  surrender,  and  the  possession  of  the  power 
of  monopoly  by  the  union  tends  to  put  the  terms  of  the  demand 
upon  an  abnormal  and  artificial  basis.  Much  so-called  collective 
bargaining  is   really  a  conspiracy  between   a   closed-shop   union 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  I97 

and  a  group  of  employers  against  the  general  public.  Com- 
petition is  eliminated,  the  employers  get  higher  prices,  the  union 
gets  unusual  concessions,  and  the  public  pays  the  bill.  Outside 
of  such  arrangements,  the  employer  charged  with  the  duty  of 
keeping  the  processes  of  industry  in  operation  will  not  voluntar- 
ily accept  the  lessened  efficiency  and  the  disorganization  repre- 
sented by  a  closed-shop  agreement.  He  cannot  afford  it.  Many 
of  our  large  national  industries  have  been  at  different  times 
governed  by  closed-shop  agreements,  but  like  a  machine  that 
proves  too  wasteful  and  costly,  the  closed  shop  was  discarded 
and  will  never  again  be  accepted.— PV alter  Drew.  Trade  Union- 
ism— a  constructive  criticism,   p.  3. 

Oath  of  International  Typographical  Union 

I  (give  name)  hereby  solemnly  and  sincerely  swear,  or  af- 
firm, that  I  will  not  reveal  any  business  or  proceedings  of  any 
meeting  of  this  or  any  subordinate  union  to  which  1  may  here- 
after be  attached,  unless  by  order  of  the  union,  except  to  those 
I  know  to  be  members  in  good  standing  thereof;  that  I  will, 
without  equivocation  or  evasion,  and  to  the  best  of  my  abil- 
ity, abide  by  the  constitution,  by-laws,  and  the  adopted  scale 
of  prices  of  any  union  to  which  I  may  belong;  that  I  will  at 
all  times  support  the  laws,  regulations,  and  decisions  of  the 
International  Typographical  Union,  and  will  carefully  avoid 
giving  aid  or  succor  to  its  enemies,  and  use  all  honorable 
means  within  my  power  to  procure  employment  for  members 
of  the  International  Typographical  Union  in  preference  to 
others;  that  my  fidelity  to  the  union  and  my  duty  to  the  mem- 
bers thereof  shall  in  no  sense  be  interfered  with  by  any  alleg- 
iance that  I  may  now  or  hereafter  owe  to  any  other  organiza- 
tion, social,  political  or  rehgious,  secret  or  otherwise;  that  1 
will  belong  to  no  society  or  combination  composed  wholly  or 
partly  of  printers,  with  the  intent  or  purpose  to  interfere  with 
the  trade  regulations  or  influence  or  control  the  legislation  of 
this  union;  that  I  will  not  wrong  a  member,  or  see  him  or  her 
wronged,  if  in  my  power  to  prevent.  To  all  of  which  I  pledge 
my  most  sacred  honor.— t/.  5'.  Industrial  Commission.  17:86-7. 
1901. 


SUPPLEMENTARY   MATERIAL 
SECOND    EDITION 


GENERAL  DISCUSSION 

CLOSED  SHOP  AND  OPEN  SHOP 
TERMINOLOGY  ' 

The  terms  "closed  shop"  and  "open  shop,"  which  are  broadly 
used  in  the  controversy  which  is  now  raging  between  a  great 
number  of  employers'  associations  and  unions,  are  so  vague  and 
misleading  that  those  using  them  often  mean  different  things 
thereunder.  Furthermore,  they  appear  on  close  examination  to 
be  entirely  inadequate  to  express  the  various  forms  of  policy  as 
regards  to  employment  of  union  men  and  non-union  men  which 
obtain  today.  It  seems,  therefore,  timely  to  analyze  the  mean- 
ing of  these  terms  and  suggest  a  more  practicable  and  appro- 
priate terminology. 

Several  other  terms  broadly  used  in  the  present  controversy 
are  subject  to  various  interpretations.  Thus,  for  example,  what 
is  "collective  bargaining"?  The  labor  union  means  under  this 
one  thing,  the  manufacturers'  association  another,  and  citizens  at 
large  often  still  something  else.  Suffice  it  only  to  remember 
the  discussion  of  "collective  bargaining"  before  the  President's 
first  Industrial  Conference  to  appreciate  the  confusion  involved. 
Or  what  is  "the  public"  that  is  so  often  brought  into  the  discus- 
sion of  industrial  issues?  Some  say  it  is  the  element  that  is 
neither  an  employer  nor  an  employee.  Others  reply,  "If  this 
is  what  you  mean  by  the  term,  then  there  is  no  public,  for  every- 
body is  either  an  employer  or  an  employee,'*  and  add,  "The  work- 
men are  the  real  public."  Or  what  does  the  term  "recognition  of 
the  union,"  around  which  the  controversy  largely  rotates,  mean? 
Some  say  it  means  the  "closed  shop,"  others  that  it  means 
nothing,  for  "how  can  you  refuse  to  recognize  the  existence  of 
something  which  exists  and  stares  you  in  the  face"?  And  how 
about  the  term  "union"?  Judge  Alayer  not  very  long  ago  ruled 
the  International  Association  of  Street  and  Railway  Employees 
out  from  the  Interborough  Company  of  New  York  City  and  re- 
cognized the  benevolent  association  organized  by  that  company 

1  Report  of  the  Bureau  of  State  Research  to  the  Committee  on  In- 
dustrial Relations  of  the  New  Jersey  State  Chamber  of  Commerce  by 
Paul  Studensky,  Supervisor  of  Staff.    New  Jersey.  8:21-4.  November,   1920 


202  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

as  a  "union."  All  these  terms  and  a  few  others  of  great  im- 
port in  the  discussion  of  the  present  issue  require  clarification, 
and  as  a  contribution  to  such  clarification  and  without  pretense 
of  having  said  the  last  word  in  the  matter,  this  explanation  is 
presented. 

"Closed  Shops"  and  "Open  Shops" 

The  common  conception  of  the  closed  shop  is  that  it  is  a  shop 
in  which  non-union  men  cannot  obtain  or  retain  employment. 
It  is  generally  thought  that  every  union  shop,  i.e.,  a  shop  in  which 
the  union  is  recognized,  is  a  "closed  shop."  Instances  of  union 
shop  where  no  closed  shop  obtains  are  ignored  and  the  term 
"recognition,"  "union  shop"  and  "closed  shop"  are  thought 
synonymous.  .  By  way  of  contrast,  all  shops  that  arc  not  "closed 
shops"  in  the  above  sense,  and  do  not  involve  recognition,  are 
thought  to  be  "open  shops,"  the  presumption  being  that  they  are 
open  to  both  union  and  non-union  men  without  discrimination. 
The  presumption  is  too  sweeping,  for  it  ignores  the  instances  of 
shops  where  discrimination  works  the  other  way — against  union 
men.  Investigation  clearly  shows  that  many  so-called  "open 
shops"  are  not  "open"  and  many  union  shops  are  not  "closed," 
and  that  this  simple  terminology  of  "closed"  and  "open"  shop  is 
confusing  and  inadequate. 

A  practicable  terminology  would  begin  with  two  large  classes 
— the  "union  shop,"  in  which  the  union  is  recognized  and  ad- 
mitted to  negotiations  on  behalf  of  the  workmen,  and  the 
"non-union  shop,"  in  which  the  union  is  not  recognized  and  is 
not  admitted  to  such  negotiations ;  and  it  would  subdivide  each 
class  into  subclasses  according  as  they  are  closed,  preferential  or 
open  toward  the  union  men  or  non-union  men  respectively  and 
according  to  other  important  factors.  At  least  nine  kinds  of  shop 
can    thus    be    indicated. 

I.  The  non-union  shop. 

1.  Closed  anti-union  shop. 

2.  Preferential  anti-union  shop. 

3.  Open  non-union  shop  without  shop  committee. 

4.  Open   non-union   shop  with   shop   committee. 

II.  The  union  shop. 

5.,  Open  indirect  union  shop. 

6.  Open  union  shop. 

7.  Preferential  union  shop. 

8.  Closed  union  shop  of  an  open  union. 

9.  Closed  union   shop  of  a  closed  union. 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  203 

Non-union  Shops 

In  the  "closed  anti-union  shop"  union  men  are  not  admitted 
except  as  a  temporary  expedient.  They  must  give  up  member- 
ship to  be  able  to  obtain  or  retain  their  employment.  The  most 
apparent  type  of  closed  anti-union  shop  is  that  enforced  by  means 
of  individual  contracts,  which  the  employees  must  sign  before 
receiving  employment,  or  a  permission  to  remain,  and  which  con- 
tain a  clause  forbidding  membership  in  the  union.  But  many 
shops  arc  closed  to  union  men  also  without  such  contract. 

The  "preferential  anti-union"  type  is  distinguished  by  the 
preference  given  to  non-union  men,  with  the  result  that  the 
union  men  are  kept  in  a  minority.  The  lines  of  demarcation 
between  the  preferential  and  closed  type  are  very  slight.  The 
employer  in  the  closed  anti-union  shop  would  at  times,  when 
the  danger  of  unionization  grows  slighter,  lower  the  bars  and 
change  to  a  preferential  policy ;  and,  vice  versa,  a  preferential 
anti-union  shop  would,  when  the  union  is  engaged  in  an  organ- 
izing drive,  change  to  a  "closed  door"  policy. 

The  anti-union  shop  of  closed  or  preferential  kind  obtains  in 
industries  which  have  been  or  are  being  organized  and  where 
the  employer  is  engaged  in  keeping  the  union  out  by  aggressive 
methods.  Tt  is  the  "open  shop"  which  is  not  open.  The  em- 
ployer may  want  to  maintain  a  true  "open  shop"  and  not  dis- 
criminate, but  he  cannot  do  it,  for  if  he  did,  if  he  permitted  a 
large  number  of  union  men,  and  especially  the  active  union  men, 
in  the  shop  and  allowed  the  union,  through  them,  to  conduct  its 
organizing  work,  he  would  soon  have  the  majority,  if  not  all, 
of  his  men  organized,  a  strike  engineered  and  perhaps  union 
recognition  from  him  secured.  Thus,  so  long  as  the  union  exists 
in  the  industry  and  the  employer  seeks  to  keep  it  out  of  his  shop, 
he  must,  all  declarations  and  intentions  to  the  contrary,  main- 
tain a  policy  of  anti-union  discrimination. 

The  most  conspicuous  anti-union  shop  is  the  one  enforced 
not  merely  by  the  individual  employer,  but  by  the  association 
of  employers  for  the  benefit  of  all  association  members.  The 
association  employment  bureau,  through  which  all  hiring  is 
done  and  which  investigates  and  keeps  the  records  of  all  ap- 
plicants and  employees  and  which  culls  out  from  among  them 
the  active  union  men  and  other  undesirables,  becomes  one  of 
the  most  prominent  instrumentalities   of   anti-union   discrimina- 


204  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

tion.  The  anti-union  shop  is  the  usual  type  of  "open  shop" 
enforced  by  "open  shop  campaigns."  The  reason  for  this  hes 
in  the  fact  that  the  latter  manifest  themselves  through  a  lock- 
out of  the  union  and  require  in  the  long  run  anti-union  discrimi- 
nation to  safeguard  the  lockout  and  the  policy  of  "non-recog- 
nition." 

The  "open  non-union  shop"  is  one  in  which,  alongside  with 
non-recognition,  no  discrimination  is  practiced.  It  obtains  very 
largely  in  industries  which  have  been  little,  if  at  all,  organized. 
It  obtains  also,  but  usually  as  an  exception  or  as  a  temporary 
condition,  in  industries  where  the  union  had  or  has  some 
standing.  In  the  latter  cases  it  is  due  either  to  the  exceptional 
intelligence  of  the  management,  which  is  able  to  forestall  "rec- 
ognition" without  using  crude  coercion,  or  to  the  protection 
afforded  it  by  the  government,  as  for  example,  during  the  war, 
when,  under  the  supervision  of  the  War  Labor  Board  and  other 
agencies,  the  principle  of  "no  discrimination"  was  imposed  on 
both  employers  and  the  unions;  or  to  the  fact  that  the  union 
has  not  yet  started  its  organizing  drive.  Of  its  two  subclasses, 
that  provided  "with  shop  committee"  presents  a  more  evolved 
type,  for  the  shop  committee  affords  an  opportunity  of  limited 
collective  bargaining  and  even  indirect  negotiation  between  the 
unrecognized  union  and  the  management  through  the  delegates 
on  the  shop  committee.  The  open  non-union  shop  is  the  true 
open  shop,  only  of  non-union  character. 

Union  Shops 

Before  starting  with  the  discussion  of  the  five  forms  of 
union  shop,  it  may  be  well  to  point  out  that  the  first  two  forms 
which  are  "open"  are  prevalent  in  industries  which  are  com- 
petitive only  to  a  slight  degree,  if  at  all,  and  are  fairly  stable, 
whereas  the  "preferential"  and  "closed"  union  shops  obtain 
pre-eminently  in  highly  competitive  and  fluctuating  industries. 
There  is  a  deep  reason  for  this  peculiar  distribution  which  it  is 
impossible  here  to  discuss,  but  which  gives  a  key  to  an  under- 
standing of  the  factors  which  stimulate  one  or  the  other  form. 

The  "open  indirect  union  shop"  is  one  where  the  union  is 
recognized  only  indirectly,  as  for  example,  through  the  instru- 
mentality of    a    public   agency   which   acts   as   the    intermediary 


THE   CLOSED    SHOr  205 

between  the  union  and  the  employer,  and  where  no  discrimina- 
tion is  practiced.  It  is  illustrated  by  the  case  of  the  packing 
industry  in  Chicago,  where  a  three-cornered  agreement  obtains, 
the  government  making  it  with  the  packers  on  one  hand  and 
with  the  unions  on  the  other.  The  two  sides  plead  their  case 
before  the  impartial  tribunal,  constituted  by  Judge  Alshuler,  who 
administers  the  agreement.  They  do  not  deal  directly  with 
each  other. 

In  the  "open  union  shop"  the  union  is  recognized  and  yet  no 
discrimination  either  way  is  allowed.  Prominent  instances  of 
the  latter  are  the  railways,  where  about  two  million 
union  men  work  under  the  rule  of  "no  discrimination,"  with 
their  unions  generally  recognized;  many  yards  in  the  shipbuild- 
ing  industry,  of  which  the  Bethlehem  Shipbuilding  Company  is 
a  conspicuous  example ;  the  Schenectady  plant  of  the  General 
Electric  Company,  employing  over  twenty  thousand  workmen; 
the  American  Locomotive  Company;  some  of  the  street  railways 
and  telephone  companies ;  the  anthracite  mine  fields ;  the  Roches- 
ter clothing  market ;  the  United  States  arsenals  and  some 
other  national,  state  and  municipal  works.  In  some  of  these  in- 
stances the  open  union  shop  has  been  maintained  for  twenty, 
thirty  years  and  even  longer,  without  transforming  into  a  closed 
union  shop,  and  has  proved  so  eminently  satisfactory  to  the 
union  that  they  emphatically  declare  that  they  do  not  want 
the  "closed  shop."  Thei  two  types  of  union  shop  just  described 
are  true  "open  shops,"  only  of  union  character. 

The  "preferential  union  shop"  is  distinguished  by  the  fact 
that  alongside  with  recognition  a  preference  is  tendered  to 
union  members.  Non-union  men  can  work  in  the  shop,  but 
they  must  be  either  better  workmen  than  the  union  men  or  the 
union  must  be  unable  to  furnish  to  the  employer  the  needed 
quota  of  workmen.  The  arrangement  is  predicated  on  the  con- 
sideration of  the  fact  that  the  union  .men  are  parties  to  the 
agreement  which  stabilizes  the  industry,  and  ought,  therefore, 
to  receive  preference.  Conspicuous  examples  of  this  type  are 
the  Chicago  Clothing  Market,  and  especially  the  Hart,  Schaff- 
ner  &  Marx  establishment,  where  this  arrangement  has  operated 
for  the  last  ten  years  with  eminent  satisfaction  to  both  sides 
and  has   not   resulted   in   the   "closed   shop"   condition.     On   the 


2o6  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

other  hand,  a  conspicuous  example  of  its  faikire  and  transfor- 
mation into  a  "closed  union  shop"  is  afforded  by  its  operation 
in  the  ladies'  garment  industry  of  New  York  City. 

The  "closed  union  shop"  is  what  is  commonly  referred  to  as 
the  "closed  shop."  It  does  not  necessarily  require  that  a  man 
be  a  union  man  before  he  is  hired.  Very  often  the  arrangement 
permits  the  employer  to  hire  any  man  he  desires,  but  the 
man  must  become  a  member  of  the  union  within  a  certain  time, 
usually  a  week  or  two  weeks.  Men  found  guilty  of  serious 
offense  against  the  union  are  not  admitted  to  the  union,  and, 
therefore,   cannot   remain   in  the   shop. 

The  closed  union  shop  must  be  divided  into  two  classes  ac- 
cording as  it  is  enforced  by  an  "open  union,"  which  keeps  its 
membership  doors  wide  open,  or  by  a  "closed  union,"  which 
keeps  its  membership  doors  fairly  closed.  The  "open  union" 
type  of  the  closed  union  shop  tends  to  eliminate  destructive 
competition  among  the  workmen  by  including  the  competitors 
in  the  union.  The  "closed  union"  type,  on  the  other  hand,  tends 
to  do  it  by  eliminating  the  competitors  from  the  industry.  The 
former  tends  to  extend  the  benefits  of  union  standards  to  all 
the  workmen,  the  latter  to  impose  a  special  privilege  upon  a 
certain  group.  The  former  affords  to  the  employer  a  wide 
supply  of  labor,  the  latter  a  restricted  one. 

A  typical  example  of  the  closed  union  shop  of  an  open  union 
is  the  shop  arrangement  of  the  miners  in  the  bituminous  coal 
industry,  the  ladies'  garment  workers  and  the  men's  clothing 
workers  in  New  York  City.  A  typical  example  of  the  closed 
union  shop  of  the  closed  union  is  the  shop  arrangement  of  the 
United  Hatters  (a  highly  skilled  trade)  and  of  various  crafts 
in  the  building  industry  and  some  branches  of  the  printing  in- 
dustry. Even  the  most  conspicuous  types  of  open  and  closed 
union  mamtain  a  certain  degree  of  elasticity  in  the  margin  of 
their  open  or  closed  door,  according  as  the  times  are  "busy"  or 
"slack."  And  between  them  are  many  unions  with  interme- 
diate forms  of  "open  or  "closed"  door.  Consequently,  there 
are  considerable  variations  in  that  respect  as  between  various 
closed  union  shops.  The  closed  union  shop  of  the  pure  closed 
union  represents  the  extreme  point  of  union  shop  just  as  the 
pure  closed  anti-union  shop  represents  the  extreme  of  the  non- 
union shop. 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP 


207 


C   O   UA 
"5   4)  -t-"    1> 


•*j  tn  u^- 
o  w  t, 

V    <u  c3    '^ 

rt   >•"  O  — 

;^,  (U  C  C  c 


3S0 


rt  bo  <j 
o    >>^  o 

o*;3 


•=  o 


QSa-S 


>-  «  i  A 

^>G  B 
o  tJ-^  '^ 

lltll 


S  C-5S  «  2  * 
^  3  C  y  C  C-S 


f?  »H  rt"3 


IS     .  & 


00  ^  *^  ?^ 


6. 


■i3  «:i  t»,  4*  c  y 


E   >.  ;;   (U  <u  C  -t-i 
C/J  O.  CO  (O  >  U-  — 


-o  boc  c 
is  rt  o 

mi 

©•S  i;  ?^  I- 

E.^    O   I'   HJ 


CO 
So  3 


'C;  bo 

.2  iJ  i-  w 

O  tn  C 

°^  >;! 


2  >.o  - 
J3  n  o  !- 


O  <uj3  C 
3-5      o 

^  S  4;  o 

«j      <"    "5 
^    ^  o^ 

C«  O 

C    Wmh  J 

'u  ..        C 
<n  S  O  g> 


a..  .>. 


VO     C. 


iss'.-.ss-a'^ 


v2  'S  !=:  o      r,  >>-*«^  is 

o  «      ""  5  o.  0,      u 

^  =6^  '-  S    Sri 

o       o  1^       f  2  ° 


«  o  S  «:!  C 


o 


CO 
o  1> 
.«  iri 
C   O 


tC  5f' 


a_.2 

•     _  tn  3 
en     C   o 

S  -^  o 


Q  H- 


G  a 


i?o  c 

<u       o 

•  -  cfl  0  3  en 

p<  j3  C.2  r  c 

£  .,  "*  2 

„;    <n      _^  o 

o  .iJ  (Li's  >>  o 


js-n 


■"  r-  N  c  S3 

S    W    CC    u^ 
HH,0   bo  O   & 


.s  o 


-    in 
CO    3 

T3. 


o  a; 


^  >> 


j3  O. 


13   CO 


=-•111^1 


W  ^-Zi' 


w  ^  S 


O  l^         .   c'o 

i5     .    C  il.  rt  4^ 
"^  \o  hH  o  bo.J2. 


>:  (N   c  o  c         2 


'•a  « 


0-3S 


« 

0 

V4 

.^ 

•«  a 

0 

«^ 

"S 

l-H    « 

3 

!5   Q 

o.a 

03 

0 

g 

a 

0  c 

JS  0 

3 

S  3 

0  ^ 

OS 

■ji 

3  a 

0 

Wi 

"^  - 

««  0. 

^■^ 

0*0 

«^ 

06 

3  Z; 


2o8  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

The  Concepts  of  the  Main  Participants  in  Industry 
and  Their  Relationships 

Having  analyzed  the  various  shop  arrangements,  let  us  now 
turn  to  a  discussion  of  the  concepts  of  such  participants  in  the 
industrial  relations  and  shop  arrangements  as  the  union,  the 
employers'  association,  the  public  and  the  shop  committee,  and 
of  such  relationships  as  recognition  of  the  union  and  collective 
bargaining,  and,  finally,  to  the  concept  of  the  law  on  industrial 
relations, 

J  he  Union  is  an  association  of  employees,  ordinarily  of  more 
than  one  establishment,  devoted  to  the  advancement  of  the  well 
being  of  all  its  members,  through  negotiation  with  employers 
or  by  other  means,  and  provided  with  officers  who  devote, 
gratuitously  or  for  a  compensation,  a  large  part  or  all  of  their 
time  to  union  affairs.  There  may  be  different  kinds  of  union. 
Some  are  local,  others  national  in  scope.  Some,  as  for  exam- 
ple, the  carpenters  or  machinists,  cover  a  certain  craft  which 
forms  a  part  of  one  or  more  industries  and  are  known  as  craft 
or  trade  unions  proper.  Others,  as  for  example,  the  miners, 
embrace  all  the  crafts  of  a  certain  industry,  and  are  known  as 
industrial  unions.  But  the  most  important  distinction  from 
the  employer's  point  of  view  is  between  a  union  which  recog- 
nizes his  rights  and  makes  agreements  with  him,  and  one  which 
enters  into  no  agreements  and  assumes  an  attitude  of  sabotage 
and  perpetual  opposition.  The  former  unions  are  those  affil- 
iated with  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  and  some,  such 
as  the  Amalgamated  Clothing  Workers  of  America,  not  affil- 
iated.   The  best  example  of  the  latter  are  the  L  W.  W. 

Employers'  associations  arc  associations  of  employers  de- 
voted to  the  purpose  of  advancing  the  interests  of  their  mem- 
bership. Some  are  local,  some  national.  Some,  such  as  the 
National  Metal  Trades  Association,  embrace  a  certain  trade ; 
others,  such  as  the  National  Association  of  Manufacturers,  or 
state  or  local  manufacturers'  or  employers'  associations,  cover 
all  or  a  number  of  trades.  But  the  most  fundamental  distinction 
is  as  regards  to  their  labor  policy.  Some  are  antagonistic  to 
the  labor  unions  as  at  present  constituted  and  work  to  check 
the  advance  of  present  day  unionism ;  others  cooperate  with 
labor  organizations  and  make  agreements  with  them;  still  others 
have  no  labor  policy  whatsoever. 

The  Public. — The  public  is  the  conglomerate  of  all  the  people 
and  all  the  interests  of  the  community.     It  is  the  employer  and 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  209 

the  employee,  the  farmer  and  the  farm  helper,  the  professional, 
such  as  the  physician,  lawyer,  etc.,  the  miscellaneous  middle 
class,  which  is  neither  employer  nor  employee,  and,  finally,  the 
housewife.  Each  employer  and  employee  performs  a  double 
function  and  has  a  double  nature.  On  one  hand  he  is  the  em- 
ployer or  the  employee  in  the  particular  establishment  or  in- 
dustry. On  the  other  hand,  he  is  a  member  of  the  community 
at  large  and  a  consumer — he  is  a  member  of  the  public.  The 
former  function  usually  predominates  in  his  immediate  activi- 
ties in  his  industry  or  establishment.  His  consciousness  of 
being  a  member  of  the  public  is  atrophied  there  to  a  large  ex- 
tent. The  public  becomes,  then,  the  great  outsider — the  out- 
sider who  enscopes  the  other  workmen,  employers  and  all  the 
rest  of  the  people.  The  public  is  not  an  impartial  body  in  in- 
dustrial controversies.  Now  guided  by  one  sentiment  or  interest, 
now  by  another,  it  sides  now  with  the  employer,  now  with  the 
employees. 

The  Shop  Committee  is  a  system  of  employee  representation 
and  negotiation  with  the  management  limited  in  scope  to  a  single 
company  or  establishment.  In  its  least  developed  form  it  is  a 
committee  of  the  workers  in  which  the  management  does  not 
participate,  but  with  whose  delegates  or  officers  it  deals.  In  its 
more  developed  form  it  is  a  joint  organization  in  which  both 
the  employing  and  employed  elements  are  represented. 

There  are  three  types  of  shop  committee  as  regards  union- 
ism: (i)  the  one  operated  as  a  substitute  for  unionism;  (2)  the 
one  planned  to  be  neutral  on  the  union  question,  and  (3)  the  one 
combined  with  the  recognition  of  the  union.  As  regards  to  col- 
lective bargaining,  the  shop  committees  must  be  divided  into 
(i)  those  which  involve  collective  bargaining,  and  (2)  those 
which  do  not  and  are  largely  of  a  welfare  type.  Finally,  in 
some  shop  committees  the  employer  has  the  final  veto,  whereas  in 
others  arbitration  is  provided.^ 

Recognition  of  the  Union. — This  term,  in  its  application  to 
employers,  means  the  recognition  by  the  employer  of  the 
authority  of  the  union  to  represent  the  workmen  in  negotia- 
tions with  him  over  matters  in  which  his  workmen  are  con- 
cerned. These  matters  may  be  wages,  working  conditions,  dis^ 
charges,  individual  or  collective  grievances  of  the  men,  etc. 
The    recognition    may   vary    in    extent,    as    to    the    constituency 

^  For  fuller  discussion  of  shop  committees  see  report  of  the  Bureau 
of  State  Research,  consecutive  no.  i8,  Shop  Committee  and  Industrial 
Councils.    19 19.    64P. 


210  SliLECTED    ARTICLES 

involved,    as   to    matters    subject    to   negotiation    and    as   to   the 
authority  allowed  in  the  control  of  such  matters. 

As  regards  to  constituency,  the  union  may  be  recognized  as : 
I.     Representing  the  minority,  if   it  controls  only  a  minority 
of  the  men  in  the  shop. 
II.     Representing    the    majority,    but    not    the    minority — if    it* 
represents  the  majority  of  the  men  in  the  shop. 

III.  Representing  all   the  men,  though  it  controls  only  a  ma- 
jority, on  the  ground  that  "majority  rules." 

IV.  Representing  all  the  men,  if  it  controls  all  the  men  in  the 
shop. 

The  recognition  may  go  beyond  the  scope  of  a  single  shop 
and  apply  to  the  authority  of  the  union  to  represent  the  minor- 
ity, majority  or  all  the  men  in  the  local  or  national  industry. 
Thus  several  categories  of  recognition  would  appear  to  be  ex- 
istent in  this  regard  alone. 

As  regards  to  subjects,  the  extent  of  recognition  may  vary 
from  including  merely  such  subjects  as  wages,  hours,  discharges 
and  others  mentioned  above,  to  enscoping  even  matters  of  pro- 
duction and  price  fixing.  And  as  regards  to  authority  over  the 
subjects,  it  may  range  from  including  merely  a  permission  by  the 
employer  to  the  union  to  present  to  him  the  grievances  of  the 
men  for  his  adjudication  to  involving  a  definite  contract  with 
the  union,  yielding  to  the  latter  a  certain  power  of  disciplining 
the  men  and  agreeing  in  case  of  controversy  to  submit  the  matter 
for  decision  by  a  third  impartial  body. 

The  recognition  may  be  direct  or  indirect,  as  shown  in  the 
discussion  herewith  of  various  forms  of  union  shop.  And  it 
may  be  classified  into  five  different  types  from  the  point  of  view 
of  employment  of  union  men  and  non-union  men.  These  dif- 
ferent distinctions  here  indicated  do  not  exhaust  the  list,  but 
are  sufficient  to  suggest  that  there  is  no  one  certain  form  of 
recognition,  but  a  great  wealth  of  different  forms  and  kinds. 

Collective  Bargaining. — This  term  is  appUed  to  the  wage  bar- 
gain and  is  usually  used  to  denote  that  the  employees  bargain 
jointly  (collectively)  rather  than  individually  (which  is  called 
"individual  bargaining")  with  the  employer  or  employers.  The 
term  is  wrongly  restricted  to  the  employees.  The  employer  bar- 
gains collectively,  especially  when  he  is  a  large  corporation, 
which  is  in  itself  a  combination  of  employers.  He  hires  men  in 
large  numbers  and  fixes  the  rates  of  wages  collectively  for  all 
his  employees,  conceiving  them  in  groups,  rather  than  for  each 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  211 

individual  separately.  Unquestionably  the  employer  also  bar- 
gains individually  when  he  takes  up  individual  cases.  But  this 
individual  bargaining  merely  supplements  the  collective  bar- 
gaining. Legally  all  the  bargains  of  the  employer  are  indi- 
vidual, but  in  economic  reality  they  are  pre-eminently  collec- 
tive. The  employer  is  not  merely  an  "individual."  He  is  a  col- 
lective entity,  a  collective,  integrated,  so  to  say,  employer.  Sec- 
ondly, the  employers  of  the  same  industry  or  trade  often  unite 
and  fix  jointly  the  wages,  hours  and  other  conditions  which 
should  obtain  in  their  shops  and  hire  their  men  through  the 
association  employment  bureau  which  they  jointly  maintain. 
They  bargain  collectively,  in  the  fullest  sense  of  this  term.  In 
view  of  this  fact,  there  has  recently  developed  a  tendency  to 
denote  as  collective  bargaining  only  such  bargaining  where  on 
both  sides  a  group  is  involved.  This,  however,  is  stretching  the 
term  to  another  extreme,  as  it  would  exclude  such  bargaining 
which  is  collective  on  one  side.  The  bargaining  of  the  workmen 
may  be  different  in  scope;  it  may  be  limited  to  an  individual 
shop  or  embrace  a  number  of  establishments.  If  collective 
bargaining  is  thus  broadly  conceived,  some  element  of  it  will  be 
found  in  most  any  shop.  It  may  be  divided  in  the  following 
main  classes : 

L       Collective    bargaining    only     by    employer     (employer's 
collective  bargaining)  : 

A.  By    associated    employers    with    individual    employees. 

B.  By  individual  employer,  who  is  a  combination,  with 
individual  employees. 

II.     Collective   bargaining   by   both    (joint    collective    bargain- 
ing) : 

A.  Between    employer    and    the    employees    of    the    shop 
where : 

T.     The  latter  have  no  right  to  employ  outside  counsel. 
2.     The  latter  have  such  right. 

B.  Between   the   local   or   national   trade   association    of 
employers  and  the  local  or  national  trade  union. 

HI.       Collective    bargaining    pre-eminently    by    the    employees 

(employees'    collective  bargaining)  :     Between  the  local 

or  national  union  and  the  individual  employer. 

Another  distinction   may  be  helpful.     This  is  between  direct 

and  indirect  bargaining.     The  former  obtains  where  both  sides 

deal   with    each   other.     The    second,   where   they   deal   through 


212  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

an  intermediary,  who  acts  as  the  mediator  or  arbitrator,  as  one 
side  or  the  other  or  both  sides  lack  confidence  in  the  other  and 
do  not  want  to   deal   directly. 

Law  on  Industrial  Relations. — It  may  seem  at  first  that  this 
term  does  not  require  definition.  Yet  there  is  such  confusion 
of  thought  apparent  in  the  matter  that  an  explanation  may  be 
well  ni  place.  A  distinction  between  common  law  and  statu- 
tory law  is  of  greater  importance  in  this  field  than  in  any  other. 
For  it  does  not  require  much  investigation  to  find  that  hardly 
any  statutory  law  obtains  here.  In  the  absence  of  statutory 
law,  the  courts  must  decide  the  cases  that  come  up  before  them 
on  the  basis  of  the  common  law,  much  of  which  dates  a  hun- 
dred or  a  few  hundred  years  back  when  conditions  were  funda- 
mentally different  than  they  are  today,  and  when  the  relation- 
ship of  master  and  servant  obtained,  and  which,  consequently, 
is  often  very  vague.  This  explains  the  wide  differences  in  the 
decisions  rendered  by  judges  today,  some  of  which  declare  as 
legal  and  others  as  illegal  certain  forms  of  individual  anti- 
union contract,  or  certain  forms  of  collective  union  contract, 
and  such  matters  as  picketing,  the  strike,  the  "closed  shop,"  the 
"boycott,"  etc.  The  need  of  statutory  law  in  the  field  of  indus- 
trial relations  is  much  more  crying  than  in  any  other  field,  be- 
cause constant  changes  occur  jn  industry  and  in  the  concepts 
of  each  side  as  to  its  rights  and  duties,  and  the  industrial  rela- 
tions are,  therefore,  more  dynamic  than  any  other  human  rela- 
tions. The  statutory  law  on  industrial  relations  is  yet  to  be 
made.  And  as  law  is  usually  based  on  relationships  which  ob- 
tain and  which  in  the  concepts  of  those  concerned  are  good,  and 
must  be  legalized  or  are  bad,  and  must  be  outlawed  or  corrected, 
it  is  evident  that  the  basis  for  the  future  statutory  law  is  being 
prepared  today  in  the  workshop,  i.e.,  in  the  relationships  which 
the  employers  and  employees  rightly  or  wrongly  are  there  shap- 
'  ing. 

THE  CHURCHES  VS.  THE  OPEN  SHOP ' 

The  Catholic  church,  the  united  Protestant  churches,  and 
the  largest  Protestant  denomination  have  united  with  labor  in 
condemnation  of  the  open  shop  movement,  and  a  definite  issue 
between  thousands  of  manufacturers  and  employers  on  the  one 

^  Literary  Digest.   68:32.  February    19,   1921. 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  213 

hand  and  the  official  spokesmen  of  the  Christian  church  on  the 
other  has  apparently  been  raised.  The  tides  of  controversy  run 
high.  It  is  charged  by  the  supporters  of  the  so-called  "American 
plan"  of  employment  that  the  church,  in  thus  taking  up  the  pro- 
gram of  labor,  is  interfering  in  matters  entirely  beyond  its  con- 
cern. But  a  Methodist  minister  testifying  before  the  Senate 
Committee  on  Education  and  Labor  insists  that  "anything  that 
has  a  broad  bearing  upon  humanity,  like  hours  of  labor,  working 
conditions,  and  rates  of  pay,  is  the  business  of  the  church." 
With  this  view  of  their  duty  in  mind,  the  Commission  on  the 
Church  and  Social  Service  of  the  Federal  Council  of  Churches 
of  Christ  in  America,  the  social  department  of  the  National 
Catholic  Welfare  Council,  and  the  Social-Service  Committee  of 
the  Methodist  Church  have  issued  statements  upholding  labor's 
contention  that  the  open  shop,  or  "American  plan  of  employ- 
ment," is  in  reality  but  a  camouflaged  campaign  for  a  closed 
shop,  "a  shop  closed  against  members  of  the  union" — and  warn- 
ing us  of  dire  perils  should  it  be  established.  Any  such  step, 
we  are  told,  must  occasion  alarm,  and  Christian  leaders,  "listen- 
ing to  the  rumbles  of  distant  thunder,"  point  to  conditions  in 
Europe  as  a  warning  example  of  what  may  happen  here  should 
a  crisis  be  evoked  by  the  present  agitation.  While  advocates 
of  the  "American  plan"  contend  that  the  laborer  will  be  free 
to  work  when  and  where  and  for  whom  he  pleases,  the  church 
replies  that  the  movement  for  the  open  shop  will  mean  the 
return  to  wage  slavery  and  the  loss  of  all  that  has  been,  and 
may  be,  gained  from  collective  bargaining.  There  is  a  wide- 
spread conviction  that  an  attempt  is  being  made  to  destroy  or- 
ganized labor,  says  the  Federal-Council  statement,  and  "any  such 
attempt  must  be  viewed  with  apprehension  by  fair-minded 
people."  To  pledge  a  man  against  affiliation  with  a  union,  we 
are  told,  "is  as  unfair  and  inimical  to  economic  freedom  and 
to  the  interest  of  society  as  is  corresponding  coercion  exercised 
by  labor  bodies  in  behalf  of  the  closed  shop."     Therefore, 

It  seems  incumbent  upon  Christian  employers  to  scrutinize  carefully 
any  movement,  however  plausible,  which  is  likely  to  result  in  denying 
to  the  workers  such  affiliation  as  will  in  their  judgment  best  safeguard 
their  interests  and  promote  their  welfare  and  to  precipitate  disastrous 
industrial  conflicts  at  a  time  when  the  country  needs  good-will  and  co- 
operation   between   employers   and   employees. 

In  the  Catholic  statement  likewise  is  found  the  conviction 
that  the  present  drive  is  not  merely  against  the  closed  shop,  "but 
against     unionism     itself,     and     particularly     against     collective 


214  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

bargaining.  .  .  Should  it  succeed  in  the  measure  that  its  pro- 
ponents hope,  it  will  thrust  far  into  the  ranks  of  the  under-paid 
bod}^  of  American  working  people."     So : 

To  aim  now  at  putting  into  greater  subjection  the  workers  in  industry 
is  blind  and  foolhardy.  The  radical  movements  and  disturbances  in 
Europe  ought  to  hold  a  lesson  for  the  employers  of  America.  And  the 
voice  of  the  American  people  ought  to  be  raised  in  the  endeavor  to  drive 
this  lesson  home. 

Warning  is  also  uttered  by  the  Federation  for  Social  Service 
of  the  Methodist  Church.  In  a  statement  prepared  for  that 
body  by  its  secretary,  Dr.  Harry  F.  Ward,  and  its  president, 
Bishop  Francis  J.  McConnell,  we  are  told  that  when  we  con- 
sider what  has  happened  in  the  steel  industry  it  seems  "quite 
clear  that  the  success  of  the  present  open  shop  campaign  would 
mean  the  establishment  of  a  closed  shop — closed  against  union 
labor,  and  would  return  large  numbers  of  wage  earners  to  the 
lix'ing   standards  of  sweated  industries."     Furthermore: 

In  the  light  of  what  is  now  happening  in  certain  local  mining  districts 
in  West  Virginia,  we  regard  it  as  certain  that  the  consummation  of  this 
open  shop  campaign  will  perpetuate  and  increase  chaos,  anarchy,  and  war- 
fare in  our  industrial  life,  will  intolerably  delay  the  development  of  con- 
stitutional democracy  in  industry,  which  the  churches  have  declared  to  be 
the   Christian  method  of  industrial  control. 

The  whole  open  shop  campaign  is  simply  an  attempt  to 
hoodoo  us,  thinks  The  Herald  of  Gospel  Liberty  (Christian), 
which  says  it  is  "simply  audacious  presumption  upon  the  igno- 
rance or  the  indifference  of  the  masses  of  the  American  people 
to  call  their  objective  'the  American  principle  of  employment.'" 
In  the  opinion  of  The  N eiv  World   (CathoHc)  : 

The  fight  is  against  organized  labor,  no  more,  no  less.  If  an  applicant 
for  work  must  pledge  himself  against  joining  a  union,  or  a  union  man 
is  refused  employment,  or  a  man  who,  while  employed,  joins  a  union 
and  is  discharged,  we  may  be  pardoned  from  regarding  this  as  the  great 
boon  of  the  open  shop.  This  is  about  the  type  of  freedom  we  might  ex- 
pect in  Russia. 

It  is  time  that  the  church  entered  into  this  particular  con- 
troversy, thinks  the  Sioux  City  Daily  Tribune,  which  rejoices 
that  no  longer  can  it  be  called  a  "namby-pamby  institution, 
timorously  shunning  all  conflict."  Opposition  to  the  "American 
plan"  is  welcomed,  for,  in  the  opinion  of  this  newspaper,  "the 
closed  shop  has  become  firmly  entrenched  in  the  American  in- 
du.stry,  and  its  removal  would  be  attended  by  all  the  pain,  and 
danger  of  a  major  surgical  operation." 

But  The  Manufacturers'  Record  argues  that  the  open  shop 
movement  is  not  against  labor,  as  church  statements  would  have 
us  believe.     Furthermore,  the  Federal  Council,  as  an  organized 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  215 

attempt  to  represent  the  entire  Protestant  churches,  is  "without 
excuse  for  existence,"  we  are  told,  and,  therefore: 

It  has  no  right  to  speak  for  the  religious  life  of  this  country,  and 
its  attempt  to  influence  the  nation  agains<  the  open  shop  movement  is  an 
insult  to  the  business  people  of  this  country  who  are  in  favor  of  the  open 
shop  and  whose  religious  convictions,  we  venture  to  say,  are  founded  on 
a  deeper  religious  life  than  those  who  undertake  to  direct  this  organiza- 
tion in  the  hope  of  developing  an  ecclesiastical  autocracy  such  as  that  on 
which  men  of  the  same  spirit  threw  away  $9,000,000  of  other  people's 
money  in  their  effort   to   build  up   the  Interchurch   World   Movement. 

The  open  shop  movement  is  a  movement  for  the  freedom  of  a  man 
to  work  untrammeled  by  the  dictates  of  radical  labor  leaders.  It  is  the 
only  basis  on  which  there  can  be  freedom  and  liberty  and  independence 
on  the  part  of  the  individual  employee  or  employer.  The  aggressive  leader- 
ship of  rank  socialistic  labor  union  men  in  trying  to  destroy  the  open 
shop  right  of  every  man  to  work  when  and  where  he  pleases  and  for 
whom  he  pleases,  and  the  right  of  an  employer  to  employ  whom  he 
pleases  unbossed  by  an  unprincipled  gang  of  radical  walking  delegates, 
must  be  the  foundation  on  which  to  build  the  safety  and  the  permanency 
of  this  government. 

These  church  attacks  on  the  open  shop  campaign  are  not 
relished  in  all  church  circles;. we  find  The  Presbyterian  of  the 
South  (Richmond),  for  instance,  declaring  that  "this  is  a  matter 
of  business,  with  which  the  church  or  a  council  representing  it 
has  nothing  to  do." 

BRIEF  EXCERPTS 

The  so  called  open  shop  is  often  in  reality  a  closed  shop, 
inasmuch  as  only  strictly  non-union  men  will  be  employed.  Is 
not  this  type  of  open  shop  just  as  un-American  as  the  other? — 
American  Machinist  53  :645.  September  30,   1920. 

The  union  or  closed  shop  is  at  once  the  most  widely  em- 
ployed as  well  as  the  most  effective  device  of  American  trade 
unions  for  the  purpose  of  maintaining  stabihty  in  membership. 
— IVilliam  O.  Wey forth.    The  organizability  of  labor,  p.  116. 

The  open  shop  movement  becomes  something  more  than  a 
dispute  between  corporations  and  unions.  It  is  a  matter  of  vast 
public  concern,  meriting  the  sober,  analytical  attention  of  every 
believer  in  fair  play  and  the  maintenance  of  American  standards. 
— Weekly  Bulletin  {Cleveland  Federation  of  Labor)  2:1. 
February  16,  1922, 

The  greatest  enemies  of  the  open  shop  are  those  who  mas- 
querade under  that  broad  and  tolerant  slogan  when,  in  fact, 
they  actively  pursue  an  anti-union  policy  by  discriminating  against 


2i6  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

union  men.  Hundreds  of  employers  arc  thus  dragging  the  open 
shop  through  the  mire  and  are  holding  it  up  to  distrust  and 
suspicion  before  the  public. — Walter  G.  Merritt.  The  open  shop 
and  industrial  liberty,  p.  8.  ' 

None  of  our  industrial  centers  are  without  employers  who 
combine  expressly  to  use  the  open  shop  to  destroy  unionism  it- 
self. Their  legal  spokesmen  are  very  astute  in  appealing  to 
"liberty"  and  other  sacred  names  dear  to  the  public.  Collective 
bargaining,  when  it  was  as  legitimate  as  any  employer's  associa- 
tion in  the  land,  has  been  crushed  out  so  often  and  by  means 
that  many  employers  do  not  dare  disclose,  that  labor  has  felt 
itself  driven  to  this  closed  shop  propaganda. — John  Graham 
Brooks.    Labor's  challenge  lo  the  social  order,  p.  134. 

And  may  I  say  one  last  word  about  the  employer?  He 
organizes  the  forces  of  production.  He  is  the  natural  leader 
of  his  workmen,  and  is  able  by  instruction,  example  and  fair 
dealing  to  bring  to  bear  constantly  upon  them  influences  for 
right-thinking  and  action  and  for  loyalty  to  the  common  enter- 
prise. He  cannot  escape  responsibility  if  he  neglect  this  oppor- 
tunity and  they  become  alienated  and  followers  of  false  leaders 
and  vicious  doctrines.  His  position  also  carries  with  it  larger 
obligations  and  he  should  consider  himself  not  as  engaged  in 
business  entirely  for  individual  profit,  but  as  a  trustee  for  the 
beneficial  use  of  the  forces  of  production  that  he  controls.  The 
making  of  profits  can  no  longer  be  considered  the  sole  test  of 
business  success.  Industry  has  not  performed  its  function  un- 
less it  brings  betterment  of  conditions  and  increased  comforts 
to  the  worker  as  well  as  to  the  owner  and  unless  its  product 
is  made  available  to  the  general  public  at  prices  as  low  as  pos- 
sible through  efficiency,  cooperation  and  unrestricted  production. 
This  broad  view  by  the  employer  as  a  working  principle  in  his 
own  business  and  in  his  association  with  other  employers  is  not 
altruism,  but  is  being  found  to  be  a  sound,  constructive  business 
philosophy. — Walter  Drezv,  The  open  or  closed  shop.  p.  22. 

The  United  States  Chamber  of  Commerce  issued  during  the 
summer  [of  1920]  a  referendum  on  principles  of  industrial  re- 
lations. Some  of  the  principles  were  expressed  so  loosely  and 
admitted   such   varying  interpretation   or  were   so   legalistic  and 


THE   CLOSED   SHOP  217 

unmindful  of  the  human  and  economic  aspects  of  the  subject 
that  tlie  [New  Jersey]  State  Chamber  did  not  vote  on  them. 
In  abstaining  from  voting  on  the  open  shop  principle,  which  as 
worded  readily  admitted  even  a  closed  anti-union  shop,  the 
State  Chamber  explained  that  "investigations  show  that  the  term 
'open  shop'  used  in  this  principle,  as  well  as  the  term  'closed 
shop'  is  vague  and  misleading.  A  non-union  shop  is  not  neces- 
sarily 'open.'  It  is  often  'closed'  to  union  men.  A  union  shop 
is  not  necessarily  'closed.'  There  are  many  instances  of  shops 
where  the  union  is  recognized  and  yet  no  discrimination  is  al- 
lowed as  between  union  and  non-union  workers."  As  regards 
to  collective  bargaining  and  the  right  of  employees  to  be  rep- 
resented by  men  who  arc  not  employees  of  the  employers,  the 
Chamber  voted  that  "as  a  general  proposition,  the  employees  are 
placed  more  nearly  on  a  parity  with  the  employer  when  dealing 
collectively  with  him ;"  that  "the  employees  should  have  the 
same  right  as  the  employers  to  be  represented  by  whomever  they 
trust  and  that  the  employer  should  recognize  the  union  if  proofs 
(lists  and  figures)  are  submitted  to  him  showing  that  a  large 
proportion  of  his  employees  are  unionized;"  that  "it  seems  better 
to  grant  recognition  in  this  way  than  leave  it  to  be  settled  by  a 
strike." — New  Jersey  8:25.  December  1920.  Ninth  Annual  Report 
of  Board  of  Trustees  New  Jersey  State  Chamber  of  Commerce. 


AFFIRMATIVE  DISCUSSION 

AN  EXPOSITION  OF  THE  UNION  SHOP  ^ 

The  question  of  the  union  shop  is  not  by  any  means  a  new 
system  of  collectivity  among  the  producers,  and  its  beginning  can 
be  traced  to  the  early  periods  of  civilization,  but  never  before 
has  the  virtues  of  this  right  of  the  workers  to  combine  taken  on 
a  phase  of  ultimate  good  to  society  as  in  our  present  day.  The 
reason  for  this  can  be  traced  to  the  present  need  of  a  great 
nation,  and  the  necessity  in  supplying  this  need  by  specialization 
in  the  act  of  productivity  and  the  combining  of  workers  in  large 
industrial  institutions. 

In  no  country  on  the  face  of  the  globe  are  the  conditions  of 
society  similar  to  those  in  our  country,  and  when  we  say  society 
we  mean  the  people  who  make  up  our  country,  and  it  is  not 
surprising  that  the  problems  confronting  the  workers  differ  here 
in  a  large  extent  when  compared  with  those  of  other  countries. 

In  speaking  of  the  union  shop,  it  is  necessary  to  take  into  con- 
sideration the  labor  movement  of  our  city  and  of  our  country, 
and  it  is  not  our  purpose  here  to  comment  on  the  good  that  re- 
sults to  the  workers  affiliated  with  their  various  craft  unions, 
for  they  are  well  acquainted  with  what  it  means  to  them  as 
toilers.  Neither  do  we  intend  to  enlarge  on  the  workings  of  the 
various  unions  and  their  methods  of  transacting  their  business, 
other  than  to  remark  that  they  are  absolutely  democratic  and  that 
every  man  and  woman  joining  a  craft  union  is  a*  unit  in  the 
conduct  of  its  business. 

Our  intention  in  this  pamphlet  is  to  take  the  position  of  an 
outsider  and  to  point  out  logically  and  graphically  what  the 
union  shop  means  to  society  for  we  feel  sure  that  the  results 
of  organized  labor,  unlike  any  other  guild  of  society,  does  not 
stop  at  merely  assisting  those  who  become  affiliated  therewith, 
and  if  such  were  the  case  and  its  benefits  ceased  where  its 
membership  ceased,  we  would  have  no  case- to  take  to  the  general 
public,  but  with  the  morals  involved  and  the  unlimited  extension 

^  John    G.    Owens,    Secretary,    Cleveland    Federation    of    Labor.    1921. 


220  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

of  its  benefits,  we  feel  that  by  a  full  support  of  the  union  shop 
in  all  lines  of  work,  we  can  correct  most  of  the  evils  now  con- 
fronting society,  and  it  is  to  demonstrate  this  that  we  bring  this 
pamphlet  to  your  consideration. 

Few  of  those  who  have  not  studied  the  present  labor  move- 
ment, can  really  conceive  what  it  is,  and  we  cannot  refrain  from 
quoting  the  following  as  aptly  expressing  the  sentiments  ani- 
mating the  students  of  the  movement: 

After  all,  Uic  labor  movement  is  a  wonderful  thing.  It  is  something 
to  be  proud  of.  Jt  is  something  that  lives  all  the  time.  It  has  a  soul 
and  spirit,  and  because  of  that  it  can  tiever  die.  It  is  a  movement  that 
is  fired  with  the  grandest  social  ideals  of  the  race,  demanding  for  millions 
of  men,  women  and  children  the  right  to  economic  and  political  inde- 
pendence, a  lofty  citizenship,  and  a  higher  civilization.  It  is  a  movement 
that  is  as  broad  as  humanity  itself,  because  it  makes  for  a  more  vir- 
tuous   and    intelligent    manhood    and    womanhood. 

It  is  impossible  to  kill  the  labor  movement,  because  it  is  a  religion 
that  is  deep-rooted  in  every  life  of  man  on  this  planet.  Even  were  it 
rent  into  pieces,  and  scattered  broadcast,  it  would  still  continue  to  gather 
force,  and  go  on  and  on  down  the  corridor  of  time,  lighting  the  trail  that 
the    world's    masses    may    follow    in    its    wake. 

The  progress  that  has  been  made  by  the  labor  movement, 
not  only  in  benefits  to  society,  but  in  its  expression  of  the  prin- 
ciples are  worthy  of  note.  As  an  instance  of  what  organized 
labor  means  to  those  connected  with  the  movement,  let  us  cite 
the  following  expression  of  the  convention  of  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor,  held  in  1888: 

The  benefit  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  has  been  in  the  period 
of  its  existence  to  the  toiling  masses  of  our  country  is  more,  probably, 
than  will  be  told  before  generations  to  come.  There  is  scarcely  a  di- 
vision of  thought  upon  the  question  that  the  workers,  being  the  producers 
of  all  of  the  wealth  of  the  world,  should  at  least  enjoy  more  of  the  re- 
sults of  their  toil.  On  every  hand  we  see  fortunes  amassing,  elegant 
mansions,  and  immense  business  houses  rearing,  we  see  the  intricate 
machinery  in  rotary  motions,  the  genius  of  man,  all  applied  to  the  pro- 
duction of  the  wealth  of  the  world;  and  yet  in  the  face  of  this,  thousands 
of  our  poor,  helpless  brothers  and  sisters,  strong,  able-bodied,  willing  to 
work,  unable  to  find  it!  Hungry,  and  emaciated,  without  sufficient  to 
properly  nourish  the  body  or  to  maintain  the  mental  balance.  On  the 
other  hand,  others  bent  by  their  long  continued  drudgery  and  unrequited 
toil.  While  these  wrongs  have  been  upon  the  body  politic  from  ages 
gone  by,  we  can  yet  trace  the  improvements  in  the  condition  of  the 
people  by  reason  of  our  various  organizations.  Wherever  the  working 
people  have  manifested  their  desire  for  improvement  by  organization  there 
as  with  a  magic  wand,  improvement  has  taken  place.  Wherever  the  work- 
ing people  are  the  poorest,  most  degraded  and  miserable  there  we  can 
find  the  greatest  lack  of  organization;  and  in  the  same  degree  as  the  basis 
of  organization  is  improved  there  can  we  see  the  greater  improvement  in 
the  material,  moral   and   social  condition   of  the  people. 

This  expression,  made  thirty-two  years  ago,  gives  an  idea  of 
the  great  necessity  for  the  correction  of  evils  then  prevalent,  and 
although  the  opponents  of   organized  labor  devote  much   time 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  221 

in  a  statistical  illustration  of  the  many  workers  who  are  not  at 
present  members  of  the  craft  unions,  the  good  that  must  have 
been  accomplished  in  the  years  of  organization  from  1888  to 
1910  is  manifest  when  the  following  declaration  was  issued  by 
the  American  Federation  of  Labor: 

Organized  labor  contends  for  the  improvement  of  the  standard  of  life, 
to  uproot  ignorance  and  foster  education,  to  instill  character  and  man- 
hood and  an  independent  spirit  among  our  people,  to  bring  about  a  recog- 
nition of  the  interdependence  of  the  modern  life  of  man  and  his  fellow- 
man.  It  aims  to  establish  a  normal  workday,  take  the  children  from  the 
factory  and  the  workshop  and  place  them  in  the  school,  the  home  and 
the  playground.  In  a  word,  the  unions  of  labor,  recognizing  the  duty  of 
toil,  strive  to  educate  their  members  to  make  their  homes  more  cheerful 
in  every  way,  to  contribute  an  earnest  effort  toward  making  life  better 
worth  living,  to  avail  their  members  of  their  rights  as  citizens  and  to 
bear  the  duties  and  responsibilities  and  perform  the  obligations  they  owe 
to  our  country  and  our  fellowmen.  Labor  contends  that  in  every  effort 
to  achieve  its  praise-worthy  ends  all  honorable  and  lawful  means  are  not 
only  commendable  but  should  receive  the  sympathetic  support  of  every 
right   thinking  progressive   man. 

The  foregoing,  we  feel  assured,  will  give  the  reader  an 
idea  of  the  aims  of  the  organized  labor  movement,  or  rather 
the  organization  that  believes  that  by  collectivity,  the  workers 
can  benefit  themselves  and  those  not  connected  with  the  move- 
ment, and  also  the  employer,  but  as  yet  we  have  not  touched  on 
the  most  important  factor  of  this  movement  and  the  union  shop, 
for  we  desire  to  show  that  this  right  of  the  workers,  now  being 
denied  them  by  many  employers,  would,  if  aided  by  these  oppon- 
ents, benefit  society  by  correcting  many  of  the  evils  that  now 
exist,  and  the  fact  that  already  many  evils  have  been  cured  by 
the  partial  organization  of  the  toilers  would  warrant  the  belief 
that  an  extension  of  the  system  would  tend  to  further  relieve 
the  evils  complained  of  by  society,  if  iUiteracy,  crime,  poverty, 
and  disease,  yes,  and  premature  death,  can  l)e  called  evils  of  our 
present  civilization. 

Any  fair-minded  person,  reading  the  above  expressions  ema- 
nating from  the  forces  of  organized  labor  will  admit  that  the 
aims  are  of  a  moral  character,  and  we  have  no  hesitancy  in  say- 
ing that  even  the  worst  opponents  of  organized  labor  will  admit 
this,  but  they  assert  that  it  is  merely  an  expression,  and  does  not 
fulfill  the  results  claimed  by  the  leaders  of  the  movement. 

In  the  main,  the  leaders  of  the  movement,  who  advocate  the 
"union  shop"  have  not  as  yet  found  it  necessary  to  logically  go 
into  the  cure  of  causes  that  make  for  evil,  feeling  that  the 
results  that  at  present  obtain  in  our  society  through  the  efforts 
of  the  organized  workers  is  of  such  a  character  as  to  attr-^ct  to 


222  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

it  the  good-will  and  the  encouragement  of  all  right-thinking 
people,  and  without  a  doubt  there  are  many  in  our  community  not 
directly  affiliated  with  the  movement  of  organized  labor  who,  by 
reason  of  the  good  resultant  for  the  right  of  the  workers  to  form 
into  trade  unions,  and  their  desire  to  further  advance  this  good, 
are  ready  and  willing  to  offer  their  services  in  this  humane  cause, 
but  the  action  of  the  manufacturers  and  the  Chamber  of  Com- 
merce, and  the  foolish  move  on  the  part  of  many  of  the  em- 
ployers in  locking  out  their  men,  to  go  back  to  a  system  prior 
to  the  formation  of  trades  unions,  and  their  method  of  deduc- 
tion, expecting  to  make  the  public  believe  that  black  is  white 
and  that  nothing  but  good  can  come  from  their  enslavement  of 
the  workers,  compels  us  to  more  thoroughly  and  truthfully  at- 
tack their  principles,  and  to  show  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt 
that  evils  pointed  out  in  the  "open  shop"  can  be  remedied  by  a 
"union  shop"  and  that  the  employer  who  urges  the  "open  shop" 
can  as  consistently  advocate  disloyalty  to  our  government  and 
the  worst  phase  of  autocracy  and  chaos  to  be  imagined. 

In  endeavoring  to  illustrate  what  unionism  and  the  union 
shop  means  to  society,  we  shall  take  every  phase  of  the  work 
and  its  relation  to  society  separately,  but  first  it  would  be  well 
to  say  that  the  workers  as  producers  have  long  since  recognized 
that  labor  performed  is  a  community  service  and  by  this 
reasoning  they  have  so  enlarged  their  vision  that  they  understand 
that  any  good  to  them  as  toilers,  must  reflect  wholly,  not  par- 
tially, on  society,  whereas,  the  employer,  as  such,  endeavors  to 
place  himself  in  a  position  outside  society  and  would  have  us 
believe  that  while  as  a  unit  of  society,  and  an  individual,  he  will 
combine  to  help  society,  yet  as  an  employer  he  is  the  arbiter  of 
the  destinies  of  those  he  employs,  who,  by  their  skill  in  produc- 
tion, not  only  assist  society  at  large  but  him  as  an  individual, 
and  they  believe  that  in  the  sale  of  a  portion  of  their  Hves  to 
an  employer  for  him  to  profit  thereby,  they,  as  units  of  society, 
should  have  something  to  say  as  to  how  long  each  day  they  shall 
devote  to  another,  and  what  their  recompense  should  be  for 
the  number  of  hours  and  intelligent  service  given  to  the  em- 
ployer. 

While  this  hypothesis  is  correct  and  the  desire  on  the  part  of 
the  worker  to  subserve  individual  selfishness  for  the  selfishness 
of  the  whole,  should  attract  to  his  assistance  the  moral  forces 
of  our  community,  we  do  not   feel  that  it  is  necessary  to  rest 


THE   CLOSED    SHOr  223 

our  case  here,  reasonable  as  it  might  seem  to  attract  the  jury  of 
the  people  to  our  cause,  and  to  make  our  case  even  stronger,  we 
will  now  take  up  some  of  the  things  that  we  believe  every  ch'izcn 
desires  in  the  interest  of  harmony  and  productivity,  efficiency  and 
loyalty,  intelligence,  morality,  honesty  and  integrity,  and  actually 
and  logically  prove  that  these  results  can  only  be  attained  by  the 
union  shop,  and  that  the  "open  shop"  employers'  desire  to  revert 
to  the  sweatshop  and  piece  work,  the  individual  contract  and  dis- 
harmony will  augment  all  the  evils  we  complain  of,  and  that 
his  only  reason  for  desiring  to  retroact  is  to  give  their  work  to 
charitable  organizations  and  welfare  organizations,  police  forces 
and  spies. 

Labor  unions  believe  in  brotherhood  and  combination  of  men 
and  women  to  advance  their  interests,  and  have  at  all  times  op- 
posed individualism.  Every  employer,  large  and  small,  has  de- 
plored the  advent  and  the  propagation  of  individualism,  and 
has  on  many  occasions  deprecated  the  violence  and  the  disloy- 
alty attributable  to  individualism.  They  know  that  all  the  isms 
we  have  been  suffering  from  can  be  traced  to  individualism,  and 
harmony  and  trust  in  a  community,  in  a  nation,  and  in  any 
movement  can  only  be  brought  about  by  people  getting  together, 
discussing  matters  pertaining  to  the  betterment  of  the  whole, 
and  doing  away  entirely  with  individualistic  ideas  and  accept- 
ing principles  and  ethics  based  on  the  greatest  good  to  the 
greatest  number.  Yet,  in  the  face  of  their  own  reasoning,  they 
insist  upon  individualistic  employment  and  productivity.  Labor 
stands  for  collectivity,  and  believes  that  if  individualism  is  bad 
Cor  a  community  and  a  nation,  it  is  wrong  in  any  institution  or 
industry,  and  it  would  appear  that  this  is  a  logical  sequence, 
and  that  it  has  been  demonstrated,  can  be  proven  by  the  dif- 
ference in  the  methods  of  operation  of  a  non-union  establish- 
ment and  a  union  establishment.  This  is  a  basic  thought,  and 
worthy  the  consideration  of  all  who  would  eliminate  many  of 
the  evils  that  we  have  suffered  from  in  the  past  by  indivi- 
dualism, and  on  this  score  we  feel  that  the  opponent  of  the 
union  shop  cannot  justly  claim  the  support  of  any  right  think- 
ing employer  to  champion  his  system  of  dealing  with  those 
whom  he  employs. 

In  correcting  evils  through  the  union  shop  condition  there 
is  one  thing,  in  our  mind,  that  has  accomplished  more  for  the 
advancement    of    society   at    large   than    any   one    thing   we   can 


224  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

think  of,  and  this  in  the  face  of  the  many  evils  we  are  con- 
fronted with,  and  this  is  the  giving  to  children  their  hirthright, 
their  right  to  grow  as  natnre  intended  the}-  should,  and  through 
the  proper  channels  inculcate  in  their  minds  the  ideals,  through 
scholastic  training,  that  make  for  a  better  manhood  and  woman- 
hood. It  is  not  so  long  ago  that  milHons  of  the  children  of 
this  country  were  driven,  through  necessity,  into  the  mines, 
workshops  and  factories,  and  in  many  cases  in  the  homes,  their 
little  fingers  were  drilled  to  do  work  that  precluded  the  time 
for  study  and  play.  In  those  days  it  was  only  in  rare  instances 
that  we  could  see  a  smile  on  a  childish  face,  or  to  hear  the 
spontaneous  laugh  of  joy  that  can  only  be  heard  from  the  lips 
of  children,  and  this  has  been  changed,  and  changed  not  by  the 
individualistic  system  of  the  open  shop,  but  by  the  collective 
reasoning  of  the  men  in  the  trade  unions.  This  bringing  back 
to  children  their  heritage,  to  we  who  belong  to  the  trade  union 
movement,  is  a  religion  and  who  can  say  we  are  not  right  in 
so  holding  to  this  belief,  for  did  not  He  say,  "Suffer  little  chil- 
dren to  come  unto  me,"  and  only  in  their  innocence  and  their 
purity,  untrammelled  by  the  iron  heel  of  labor  and  oppression, 
could  they  come  to  Him.  On  this  subject  we  cannot  forego  the 
desire  to  quote  the  following  which  is  known  to  every  trade 
unionist,  and  recognized  an  an  epic  in  our  language,  but  wc  feel 
is  never  read  or  thought  of  by  many  employers  of  today : 

Strike,  with  hands  of  fire,  thy  harp,  strung  with  Apollo's  golden 
hair ;  fill  the  vast  cathedral  aisles  with  symphonies  sweet  and  dim,  deft 
toucher  of  the  organ's  keys ;  blow,  bugle,  blow,  until  thy  silvery  notes 
do  touch  and  kiss  the  moonlit  waves,  and  charm  the  lovers  wandering 
'mid  the  vine-clad  hills.  But  know,  thy  sweetest  strains  are  discords  all 
compared  to  childhood's  happy  laugh,  the  laugh  that  fills  the  eye  with 
light,  and  every  heart  with  joy.  Oh,  laughter,  thou  art  indeed  the 
blessed  boundary  line  between  the  beast  and  man,  and  every  wayward 
wave  of  thine,  doth  drown  some  frightful  fiend  of  care.  Laughter,  rose 
lipped  daughter  of  joy,  there  are  dimples  enough  in  thy  cheek,  to  catch, 
and  hold,  and  glorify  all  the  tears  of  grief. 

And  this  unionism  has  to  a  certain  measure  accomplished, 
for,  even  in  our  day,  the  laws  enacted  to  make  it  possible  to 
everywhere  hear  the  music  of  childish  laughter  are  being 
violated.  This  desire  to  make  our  girls  women  capable  of  being 
the  mothers  of  coming  generations  of  men  and  women,  and  of 
our  boys  men  better  able  apd  more  fully  equipped  to  cope  with 
problems  of  the  future,  is  one  that  means  much  to  society,  and 
we  believe  that  few  parents  would  commit  their  children  to  toil 
and  suffering,  if  economic  conditions  were  such  that  the  head  of 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  225 

the  family,  by  his  toil,  could  give  them  the  opportunities  to 
which  they  are  entitled. 

Everywhere,  in  industrial  centers,  where  the  "open  shop" 
thrives,  the  law  with  reference  to  children  is  violated,  and 
wherever  the  men  are  unionized,  there  no  child  is  permitted  to 
work  unless  it  has  been  given  the  opportunities  demanded  by 
law.  This  is  another  reason  for  unionism  and  with  it  we  might 
say  that  unionism,  and  unionism  alone,  is  responsible  for  the 
compulsory  school  attendance  laws.  No  "open  shop"  employer 
ever  raised  his  voice  to  enact  these  laws,  and  many  today  would 
make  conditions  so  that  the  children  would  again  be  driven 
into  the  workshop,  but  we  hope  the  moral  forces  in  our  com- 
munity will  see  that  this  is  not  done,  and  if  it  is  their  wish 
that  every  child  shall  be  equal  in  its  opportunity  to  play  in  God's 
sunlight  and  develop  in  a  proper  manner  let  them  enlarge  the 
scope  of  the  "union  shop"  and  by  doing  so  enlarge  the  scope  of 
law  enforcement. 

It  is  true  that  crime  today  is  rampant,  and  society  is  en- 
deavoring in  every  way  to  eliminate  this  condition.  There  are 
many  reasons  for  crime  of  all  kinds,  but  it  would  appear  that 
the  elimination  of  want  would  correct  many  of  the  evils  we 
have,  and  this  can  only  be  done  by  equal  opportunity  for  work. 
Here  again  the  "union  shop"  carries  a  message  to  the  people. 
Where  an  industry  is  unionized,  the  interests  of  all  workers  are 
conserved,  and  when  work  is  slack,  it  is  not  the  system  to  lay 
off  a  number  of  men  and  throw  them  out  of  employment,  when, 
under  the  wage  system  they  have  little  laid  aside  to  carry  on 
their  obligations  in  idleness,  but  the  group  interest  demands  that 
the  cut  shall  be  taken  by  all,  and  the  work  equally  divided  among 
the  workers.  This  can  only  be  done  where  the  workers  are  all 
organized,  and  if  the  question  of  organization  were  general  the 
matter  of  actual  dependence  would  entirely  cease,  and  the 
unions  go  ever  farther,  for  they  have  a  community  interest  that 
insists  upon  those  at  work  assisting  those  unable  to  work,  and 
by  this  assistance  many  more  are  prevented  from  asking  charity. 

This  question  should  meet  with  the  approval  of  our  people 
for  it  takes  away  in  a  great  measure  the  incentive  to  crime  by 
reason  of  poverty,  and  while  there  may  be  what  are  termed 
hereditary  criminals,  we  believe  they  are  not  as  widespread  as 
the  criminal  through  poverty  and  lack  of  opportunity,  and  the 
correction  of  the  last  named  by  giving  him  an  equal  opportunity 


226  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

with  his  fellow  workers,  through  unionism,  would  leave  the  class 
so  small  that  it  would  require  little  law  and  little  police  surveil- 
lance to  correct  it. 

Many  crimes  are  committed  in  non-union  shops  that  should 
not  be  attributed  to  the  employer  or  the  stockholders,  but  they 
exist,  and  have  been  responsible  for  a  spread  of  crime  that  has 
been  corrected  in  several  instances  by  unionism,  and  this  fact 
should  warrant  the  extension  of  unionism.  Foremen  and  sub- 
foremen  and  straw  bosses,  in  their  insatiate  desire  to  get  more 
wages  than  the  employer  pays,  have  made  a  condition  of  padron- 
ism in  non-union  establishments  that  has  forced  workers  to  be 
untruthful  and  to  do  things  it  would  be  improper  to  mention 
here,  but  that  these  evils  can  be  corrected  by  trade  unionism  is 
best  explained  by  the  following  instance,  one  of  the  many  that 
has  come  to  our  attention: 

In  the  shirtwaist  industry  in  New  York,  in  the  days  before 
these  workers  were  organized,  it  was  found  that  many  of  the 
city's  immoral  women  came  from  these  factories,  and  the  reason 
for  this  was  not  explained  until  the  girls  organized,  and  after 
a  study  of  their  rights,  corrected  the  evils  by  insisting  that  only 
women  foremen  could  be  employed  over  the  girls  in  the  various 
departments.  The  reason  for  this  is  obvious,  for  the  men  fore- 
men not  only  exploited  the  physical  work  of  the  girls,  but  ex- 
ploited their  morals,  and  this  is  another  instance  why  unionism, 
with  its  underlying  moral  principles,  should  have  the  support  and 
encouragement  of  all  moral  forces  in  the  community. 

Unionism,  or  the  union  shop,  is  indeed  an  "open  shop"  for 
it  is  not  hemmed  in  with  spies,  police  and  straw  bosses.  The 
men  are  interdependent,  and  the  good  of  the  whole  makes  for 
efficiency  and  a  product  in  every  way  perfect.  In  this  union 
shop,  the  men  understand  that  the  perpetuation  of  the  institution 
and  the  perpetuation  of  a  perfect  product  means  the  perpetuation 
of  their  work,  and  in  a  condition  of  this  kind  it  is  not  necessary 
to  employ  spies  and  guards  and  armed  police.  The  men  are  on 
their  honor,  and  do  not  waste  either  the  time  or  the  material 
of  the  employer.  If  this  were  the  case  in  all  estabhshments,  look 
at  the  saving  it  would  mean  by  compelling  every  man  to  do  his 
share  of  work,  and  discharging  those  who  are  now  employed 
to  watch  men  while  at  work,  and  even  in  their  leisure  hours. 
It  would  not  be  long  until  the  gun-men  and  thugs  would  be  de- 
voting their  time  to  useful  work,  instead  of  using  their  time 
to  terrorize  our  people. 


THE   CLOSED   SHOP  227 

While  the  unions  today  are  doing  much  to  bring  about  better 
efficiency  they  are  greatly  handicapped  by  the  action  of  the 
non-union  employer,  who  places  power  over  the  employee  above 
confidence  in  his  intelligence,  for  when  these  men  arc  laid  off, 
they  seem  to  be  unable  to  secure  work  in  other  places,  and  in 
many  cases  they  go  to  the  union  to  assist  them,  and  the  doors 
of  the  union  being  open,  are  sent  forth  as  union  men,  to  the 
detriment  of  the  real  efficiency  of  the  union  men  who  have  been 
long  employed  in  union  shops,  but  if  all  shops  could  be  unicAized 
not  only  would  we  bring  about  a  greater  efficiency  and  a  guar- 
antee of  a  man's  worth,  but  through  our  collective  efforts  so  ad- 
vance the  mentality  of  the  workers  that  the  need  of  employment 
agencies,  headed  by  technical  experts  and  a  large  corps  of  as- 
sistants, would  be  unnecessary  and  many  persons  employed  by 
charities  and  other  experts  would  enter  the  ranks  of  the  workers 
and  the  circulation  of  the  money  now  used  in  these  efforts  could 
be  directed  to  better  pay  for  all  workers,  at  little  or  no  cost  to 
the  employer. 

The  matters  here  brought  out  are  logical  and  reasonable,  and 
coupled  with  the  good  that  has  been  accompHshed  in  the  elim- 
ination of  the  sweatshop  and  home  work,  the  enactment  of  laws 
lor  the  betterment  of  all  our  people,  the  desire  for  a  higher  in- 
telligence and  higher  morality  by  granting  to  the  worker  more 
time  for  his  self  advancement  and  lengthening  his  span  of  life 
through  shorter  hours,  hours  that  can  even  yet  be  shortened  in 
many  industries,  when  the  needless  workers  put  their  shoulders 
to  the  wheel  of  productivity,  completes  a  case  that  should  gain 
the  support  of  every  moral  force  in  our  city,  and  make  Cleve- 
land the  first  city  to  say  to  the  opponents  of  this  great  moral  fac- 
tor, which  stands  as  the  bulwark  between  annihilation  of  indus- 
trial progress  by  ultra  radicals  and  a  sane  and  safe  evolution  of 
our  industrial  ills,  "Thou  shalt  not." 

We  have  here  attempted  in  a  limited  space  to  illustrate  what 
the  "union  shop"  means,  and  by  using  as  a  premise  the  good  to 
society  that  has  already  accrued  by  reason  of  a  limited  union 
policy,  permit  the  thinker  to  pyramid  the  results  that  will  make 
•  for  good  by  fully  recognizing  the  "union  shop"  in  every  indus- 
try. Not  that  we  expect  to  sway  those  who  have  only  self- 
aggrandizment  in  view,  for  that  could  not  be,  but  to  set  forth  in 
no  uncertain  terms  just  what  unionism  will  do,  and  then  leave 
it  to  the  jury  made  up  of  all  the  people  as  to  the  insincerity  of 
those  who  are  doing  their  utmost  to  retard  this  movement,  going 


228  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

even  so  far  as  to  subscribe  money  to  the  L  W.  W.  and  other 
movements  aimed  to  destroy  our  government,  in  an  effort  to 
destroy  trade  unionism.  This  is  true,  as  was  evidenced  by  the 
testimony  of  Charles  E.  Cheney,  secretary  of  the  National  Erec- 
tors' Association,  before  the  legislative  committee  of  the  New 
York  General  Assembly,  on  December  17.  When  his  minutes 
of  the  association  were  produced,  it  was  found  that  at  least  two 
cash  donations  had  been  made  to  the  L  W.  W.  and  no  doubt  many 
other  radical  organizations,  feehng  that  they  could  destroy  the 
trade  union  movement,  and  then  they  in  turn  could  be  destroyed 
by  government  forces.  That  the  employer,  to  destroy  a  move- 
ment whose  principles  stand  for  justice  and  equity  will  stoop  to 
such  despicable  practice,  may  be  a  surprise  to  many  of  the  fair 
employers,  but  the  members  of  the  trade  union  movement 
have  long  been  aware  of  this  fact,  but  hesitated  to  give  pub- 
licity thereto,  fearing  that  such  a  statement,  unsubstantiated, 
would  not  be  credited  by  the  general  public,  but  now  it  can  be  ex- 
pressed when  the  officials  of  the  worst  enemies  of  organized 
labor  themselves  admit  it  under  oath.  In  this  same  hearing  the 
president  of  the  George  A.  Fuller  Company  insists  that  he  has 
found  union  men  on  an  average  of  at  least  25  per  cent  more  ef- 
ficient than  non-union  men. 

It  might  be  asked  why  we  receive  such  an  expression  from  a 
construction  company.  The  answer  is  simple.  The  construction 
companies  in  the  building  line  have  been  dealing  with  union  la- 
bor, under  the  system  of  the  "union  shop,"  and  we  contend  that 
if  it  is  good  in  that  industry  it  should  be  as  good  in  any  other 
industry  and  will  be  found  so  when  the  employers  in  other  lines 
will  clean  out  the  barnacles  that  cling  to  them  in  the  shape  of 
Drews  and  Cheneys,  et  al.,  and  deal  with  their  employees  as 
union  men. 

There  is  another  matter  that  deserves  brief  mention  in  this 
pamphlet,  one  that  is  seldom  broached  in  discussions  of  labor, 
and  that  is  the  system  inaugurated  by  certain  employers  in  bring- 
ing the  managerial  and  productive  ends  of  the  concern  together 
by  boards  and  councils,  which  is  merely  done  to  further  subserve 
the  worker  by  making  him  believe  that  he  has  a  voice  in  the 
establishment  when  his  intelligence  should  tell  him  that  this  is 
just  what  the  employer  insists  he  shall  not  have,  and  strange  to 
say,  organized  labor  is  of  the  same  opinion,  and  has  never  desired 
this  participation,  although  the  unfair  employer  has  tried  to 
make  the  public  believe  that  this  is  what  labor  was  aiming  for. 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  229 

The  truth  of  the  matter  can  easily  be  set  forth  so  that  it  can 
be  readily  understood.  The  union  men,  in  a  union  shop,  have 
no  desire  to  participate  in  the  management,  but  they  do  reserve 
to  themselves  the  right  of  participation  in  the  productivity  of  the 
plant,  for  they  believe  that  if  they,  through  their  cooperation, 
harmony  and  efficiency,  produce  an  article  that  meets  with  the 
approval  of  the  employer,  the  sales  force  and  the  consumer,  they 
are  entitled  to  participation  therein.  In  the  old  days  a  worker 
produced  an  article,  and  if  he  had  no  use  for  that  article  and 
required  an  article  made  by  another  worker,  who  desired  his 
article,  and  had  no  need  for  the  article  he  produced,  they  would 
meet  and  exchange,  and  by  this  means  they  had  entire  charge  of 
the  transaction.  Necessity  compelled  a  change  in  this  method, 
and  articles  were  placed  on  sale,  and  the  sale  price  received  by 
the  producer  could  be  used  in  purchasing  things  he  required. 
Further  changes  were  made,  and  work  was  specialized,  to  meet 
the  growing  demand  for  articles  produced,  but,  until  the  final 
system  was  evolved,  the  one  under  which  we  work  today,  the 
toiler  sold  what  he  produced,  and  asked  what  he  considered  a 
fair  price  for  the  articles.  The  act  of  the  producer  has  not 
changed,  and  while  it  is  true  that  machinery  has  been  invented 
to  facilitate  the  work  of  production,  an  artisan  is  still  required, 
and  he  is  of  the  belief  that  even  though  employed  in  a  factory, 
erected  by  the  employer,  he  should  have  the  right  to  participa- 
tion in  production  that  will  enable  him  to  produce  in  coopera- 
tion with  his  fellow  workers,  the  article  desired  by  the  employ* 
er.  In  this  he  has  no  desire  to  interfere  with  the  sales  de- 
partment or  the  managerial  department,  and  the  employer  if  he 
be  fair  in  the  matter,  should  be  satisfied  to  get  the  article  de- 
sired and  through  its  sale  get  his  profit.  The  building  indus- 
try is  operated  in  this  way.  The  workers-  do  their  work  in  an 
efficient  way,  and  when  it  is  completed,  it  is  turned  into  money 
and  profit  for  the  construction  company.  The  men  actually 
participate  in  the  work  on  the  job,  and  let  the  management 
take  care  of  the  counting  room,  and  there  is  the  best  harmony 
among  the  two  factions  in  interest,  and  no  desire  on  the  part  of 
the  one  to  dominate  the  other.  We  are  of  the  opinion  that  the 
same  results  could  be  obtained  in  any  industry  in  the  union 
shop  plan,  and  the  proprietor  would  be  in  reality  running  his 
business  more  so  than  at  present  with  the  large  force  of  non- 
producers  he  must  employ  under  the  "open  shop"  plan  and  the 


230  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

inefficiency  due  to  the  fact  that  he  is  not  in  direct  touch  with 
the  individuals  comprising  the  actual  producing  force. 

We  believe  we  have  given  a  fair  expression  of  what  the 
"union  shop"  will  do  for  society,  and  we  feel  that  the  results  that 
have  already  accrued  should  attract  all  people  to  the  assistance  of 
this  great  cause.  While  we  are  not  our  brothers  keepers,  we  feel 
that  to  permit  the  present  evils  to  exist  without  raising  our  voice 
to  correct  them,  or  to  pass  over  the  good  that  could  accrue  by  the 
institution  of  the  "union  shop,"  makes  each  and  every  one  of  us 
an  accessory  before  and  after  the  fact  to  these  crimes,  and  it  ill 
behooves  us  to  prate  of  morals  and  not  do  our  share  in  correcting 
these  monstrous  evils.     To  use  the  words  of  Shakespeare : 

There   is   a   tide   in   the   affairs   of   men, 

Which    taken    at   the   flood,    leads   on   to   fortune; 

Omitted,    all    the    voyage    of    their    life 

Is    bound    in    shallows    and    in    miseries. 

On  such  a  full  sea  are  we  now   afloat 

And   we  must  take  the  current   when  it  serves 

Or  lose  our  ventures. 

The  "open  shop"  un-American  advocates  have  thrown  down 
the  gauntlet,  and  not  content  with  forcing  the  workers  back  to 
a  condition  that  makes  for  an  increase  of  all  the  ills  we  are 
now  suflfering  with,  their  paid  hirelings  have  been  disseminating 
false  statements  as  to  the  aim  of  the  employer  who  opposes 
trade  unionism,  and  misrepresenting  the  purposes  of  the  trade 
unions.  We  are  not,  in  this  pamphlet  criticizing  the  employer, 
for  there  are  many  employers  who  recognize  the  human  equa- 
tion in  their  employees,  and  who  are  ready  to  subscribe  to 
the  good  resultant  from  trade  unionism,  but  we  are  criticizing  the 
system  known  as  the  "open  or  non-union  shop"  and  bringing  our 
case  to  the  people  in  a  clear  and  concise  manner,  feeling  that  in 
them  and  the  moral  fofccs  that  make  up  our  city  rests  the  future 
industrial  supremacy  of  Cleveland,  and  we  feel  sure  that  they, 
like  the  members  of  the  trade  union  m.ovement,  desire  the  fur- 
ther curtailing  of  crime,  poverty  and  illiteracy,  and  after  un- 
derstanding the  position  of  the  exponents  of  the  "open  shop" 
and  what  it  really  means  to  our  body  politic,  they  will  throw 
their  influence  with  the  right,  and  help  to  make  Cleveland  a 
better  and  a  more  moral  city  by  serving  notice  on  the  employer 
that  he  must  sever  connections  with  the  Drews  and  Garys  and 
deal  fairly  with  his  employees,  knowing  that  by  so  doing  he 
will  place  himself  in  a  position  to  outsell  and  profitably  compete 
with  non-union  concerns  in  other  cities. 


THE   CLOSED    SHOT  231 

We  want  Cleveland  to  stay  in  the  lead  in  putting  good  things 
"over  the  top,"  and  we  feel  sure  that  when  the  "union  shop"  has 
been  put  "over  the  top"  in  Cleveland,  it  will  do  more  for  the 
moral  uplift  and  intellectual  advancement  of  all  our  people,  than 
any  movement  for  justice  ever  entered  into. 


THE  OPEN   SHOP  CRUSADE  ^ 

That  there  is  a  veritable  "open  shop"  crusade  on  right  now 
is  very  evident.  In  several  instances  of  late  we  have  seen  the 
employers  willing  to  concede  everything  asked  by  the  employees 
excepting  the  closed  shop. 

The  reason  is  plain.  It  would  make  little  difference  what 
other  concessions  the  employer  might  make  if  the  open  shop  can 
be  established,  for  that  will  take  from  the  unions  their  main 
leverage,  in  fact,  will  make  them  helpless,  so  that  anything  the 
employers  may  now  concede  to  them  in  exchange  for  the  open 
shop  can  be  taken  away  from  them  later  as  easy  as  taking  candy 
from  a  baby. 

But  there  is  this  consoling  thought,  however,  that  no  matter 
what  may  happen  to  organized  labor  right  now  as  a  result  of 
the  nation-wide  unemployment,  it  will  not  last  always.  It  may 
last  long  enough  for  capital  to  win  its  battle  for  the  open  shop 
and  it  may  not.  It  may  last  long  enough  to  permit  the  courts 
to  tie  the  hands  of  labor,  but  there  is  a  brighter  day  coming  when 
labor,  like  a  giant  restored  to  full  strength,  will  burst  its  puny 
bonds,  reassert  its  rights  and  restore  the  wage  earner  to  a  plane 
commensurate  with  his  importance  as  a  factor  in  our  national 
progress. 

The  closed  shop  in  the  industries  bears  the  same  relation  to 
the  shop  craft  unions  as  the  senior  rule  does  to  the  train  service 
brotherhoods.  They  are  the  backbone  of  both  and  if  either  are 
broken  down  they  are  no  longer  effective  for  collective  bargain- 
ing. In  fact,  it  would  be  impossible  to  maintain  an  organiza- 
tion today  without  them.  The  employers  know  that  these  are 
the  foundations  upon  which  effective  organization  is  built,  and 
they  will  destroy  both  if  possible.  There  has  been  no  open  at- 
tack yet  made  by  the  railroads  against  the  senior  rule.  The 
motive  would  be  too  apparent  for  that. 

^  An  editorial  by  T.  P.  Whelan,  Assistant  Editor.  Brotherhood  of 
Locomotive    Engineers'   Journal.     56  :  44.     January,    1922. 


232  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

They  will  form  company  unions  and  veterans'  associations 
first  and  lure  the  employees  into  them  by  cheap  insurance  that 
they  will  later  pay  double  for  in  reduced  wages,  and  after  get- 
ting more  complete  control  will,  through  propaganda  and  spying 
and  intimidation,  break  down  the  morale  of  the  men  as  the 
United  States  Steel  Corporation  has  done  with  its  employees, 
and  your  brotherhoods,  as  well  as  good  wages,  and  all  that  you 
have  enjoyed  in  the  past,  will  be  but  a  sad  memory. 

So  remember,  brother,  that  the  men  who  are  fighting  the 
"open  shop"  in  the  industries  today  arc  merely  the  first  line  of 
trenches  in  the  defense  of  your  senior  rule  and  all  else  that  la- 
bor has  gained  during  the  past  generation. 


THE  OPEN  SHOP  CAMPAIGN  ' 

"The  American  Plan  of  Employynent" 

Extent : — Associated  Employers,  Indianapolis,  sent  out  ques- 
tionnaire to  discover  all  local  "open  shop"  organizations ;  found 
five  hundred  and  forty  in  two  hundred  and  forty-seven  cities  in 
forty-four  states;  majority  formed  since  armistice;  consisted  of 
specific  "open  shop"  organizations,  chambers  of  commerce,  em- 
ployers' associations;  included  twenty- five  national  organizations; 
aggressive  leaders :  National  Erectors'  Association,  National  As- 
sociation of   Manufacturers,   National   Founders'  Association. 

United  States  Chamber  of  Commerce  conducted  referendum 
on  "the  right  of  open  shop  operation,"  receiving  sixteen  hun- 
dred and  seventy-six  votes  in  favor  and  four  opposed. 

Employers'  associations  began  more  than  a  year  ago  ruiming 
full  page  advertisements  in  daily  papers.  Newspaper  ad- 
vertising became  general  in  sections  of  country  where  labor  was 
not  strongly  organized,  or  where  an  aggressive  fight  was  being 
made  against  it. 

National  Association  of  Manufacturers  maintains  an  "open 
shop  department"  issuing  bulletins  on  the  campaign. 

Elements  in   the  Campaign 

I.  The  small  business  man : — Supports  campaign  because  he 
desires  right  to  deal  face  to  face  with  employees,  a  manifesta- 
tion   of    lingering    individualism    fostered    and    fed    by    pioneer 

>  Social  Service  Bulletin  (published  by  the  Methodist  Federation  for 
Social  Service,  150  Fifth  Avenue,  New  York  City),    2  :  1-4.    January,  1021. 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  233 

conditions  in  United  States,  which  resents  any  form  of  social  con- 
trol. 

2.  A  general  public: — Irritated  over  defects  of  organization 
and  temper  within  organized  labor  movement.  Supports  cam- 
paign because  it  does  not  understand  complexity  of  large-scale 
industry,  and  is  in  sympathy  with  idea  of  an  "open  shop"  because 
of  its  apparent  democracy. 

3.  An  aggressive  group  of  financial  and  manufacturing  in- 
terests:— Desires  an  autocratically  closed  shop  against  union  la- 
bor, because  so  long  as  unions  exist,  making  for  industrial  de- 
mocracy, these  interests  cannot  retain  control  of  the  industrial 
process  for  the  purpose  of  profit-making. 

The  first  two  elements  in  the  campaign  play  into  the  hands 
of  the  big  interests,  who  are  the  aggressive  leaders. 

A  Misleading  Issue : — The  campaign  claims  to  be  seeking  an 
"open  shop"  as  against  a  "closed  shop."  The  implication  is  that 
there  is  no  choice  between  the  two.  In  actual  practice  there  are 
six  kinds  of  shops  in  operation: 

1.  The  old-fashioned  open  shop,  with  no  discrimination 
against  those  who  devote  themselves  to  attempting  to  secure  the 
membership  of  their  shop-mates  in  the  union. 

2.  The  "open  shop"  of  the  employer,  which  is  made  a  cloak 
for  excluding  union  men,  or  all  union  men  who  attempt  to  make 
the  union  an  effective  force  in  influencing  labor  conditions. 

3.  The  open  shop  run  on  the  preferential  basis,  giving  pref- 
erence to  union  men  but  not  excluding  others. 

4.  The  union  shop,  in  which  the  employer  deals  with  the 
union  to  which  his  employees  belong,  but  which  is  open  to  non- 
union men. 

5.  The  closed  shop,  to  which  only  union  members  are  ad- 
mitted, but  under  guarantees  which  require  the  union  to  be  kept 
open  on  fair  and  equal  terms  to  all  competent  workers  in  the 
trade. 

6.  The  closed  shop,  to  which  only  union  men  are  admitted. 
A  union  shop  is  not  therefore  necessarily  nor  always  a  closed 

shop,  and  there  are  four  different  types  of  "open  shop"  from 
which  to  choose.  Because  the  terms  "open  shop"  and  "closed 
shop"  correspond  to  no  reality  in  actual  practice,  the  New  Jersey 
Chamber  of  Commerce  declined  to  vote  on  the  principle  of  the 
"right  of  the  open  shop  operation"  on  the  ground  that  "the  term 
'open  shop'  is  vague  and  misleading,  as  is  also  the  term  'closed 
shop'  as  ordinarily  used." 


234  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

The  Real  Issue: — The  real  issue  is  the  method  of  negotiating 
with  ejiiployees.  It  is  a  question  of  collective  bargaining  as 
against  individual  bargaining.  The  "personal  liberty"  and  "free- 
dom of  contract"  for  which  the  employing  group  stands,  leaves 
entire  control  of  hiring  and  firing,  management,  amount  and  qual- 
ity of  product,  system  of  pay,  in  hands  of  employer.  An  indi- 
vidual, even  though  a  "union  man,"  is  powerless  to  bargain  over 
these  matters.  That  this  is  the  real  issue  of  the  campaign  is 
evident  in  the  repeated  assurances  of  employing  groups  that  they 
will  not  discriminate  against  union  men  as  such,  biit  that  they 
will  deal  with  them  only  as  employees. 

The  Relation  of  the  Churches 

The  churches  have  repeatedly  expressed  themselves  upon  the 
qucstioji  of  collective  bargaining,  and  upon  the  present  "open 
shop"  campaign : 

Social  Service  Commission,  Federal  Council  of  Churches : — 
We  feel  impelled  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  wide-spread 
impression  exists  that  present  "open  shop"  campaign  is  inspired 
in  many  quarters  by  antagonism  to  organized  labor.  Any  such 
attempt  must  be  viewed  with  apprehension  by  fair-minded  peo- 
ple. It  seems  incumbent  upon  Christian  employers  to  scrutinize 
carefully  any  movement,  however  plausible,  which  is  likely  to  re- 
sult in  denying  to  workers  such  affiliation  as  will  in  their  judg- 
ment best  safeguard  their  interests  and  promote  their  welfare, 
and  to  precipitate  disastrous  industrial  conflicts  at  a  time  when 
the  country  needs  good-will  and  cooperation. 

National  Catholic  Welfare  Council: — The  "open  shop"  drive 
masks  under  such  names  as  "The  American  Plan"  and  hides  be- 
hind pretense  of  American  freedom.  Yet  its  real  purpose  is  to 
destroy  all  effective  labor  unions  and  thus  subject  working  peo- 
ple to  complete  domination  of  employers.  Should  it  succeed  in 
measure  that  it's  proponents  hope,  it  will  thrust  far  into  ranks 
of  underpaid,  the  body  of  American  working  people.  There  is 
great  danger  that  the  whole  nation  will  be  harmed  by  this  cam- 
paign of  a  few  groups  of  strong  employers.  To  aim  now  at  put- 
ting into  greater  subjection  the  workers  in  industry  is  blind  and 
foolhardy.  Radical  movements  and  disturbances  in  Europe  ought 
to  hold  a  lesson  for  employisrs  of  America.  And  voice  of  Am- 
erican people  ought  to  be  raised  in  endeavor  to  drive  this  les- 
son home. 


THE   CLOSED   SHOP  235 

Methodist  Federation  for  Social  Service: — In  light  of  the 
standards  of  our  church,  it  seems  to  us  that  the  test  of  an  "open 
shop  policy"  is  its  willingness  to  enter  into  agreements  with  or- 
ganized labor  which  leave  open  to  non-union  men  opportunity  of 
employment;  as  for  instance,  agreement  of  railroads  with  Broth- 
erhoods or  preferential  shop  of  garment  trades.  In  the  light  of 
what  is  now  happening  in  certain  local  mining  districts  in  West 
Virginia,  we  regard  it  as  certain  that  consummation  of  this  "open 
shop"  campaign  will  perpetuate  and  increase  chaos,  anarchy  and 
warfare  in  our  industrial  life,  and  will  intolerably  delay  develop- 
ment of  constitutional  democracy  in  industry,  which  churches 
have  declared  to  be  the  Christian  method  of  industrial  control. 

The  interest  of  the  churches  is  in  the  effect  of  this  campaign 
upon  collective  bargaining.  The  churches  are  a  part  of  a  gen- 
eral public  which  has  become  irritated  over  defects  of  organiza- 
tion and  temper  within  labor  movement.  Question  they  will 
raise  is  whether  the  attempt  to  correct  these  defects  by  an  "open 
shop"  drive  is  likely  to  involve  destruction  of  collective  bargain- 
ing and  such  a  weakening  of  organized  labor  as  will  delay  the 
development  of  democracy  in  industry. 

Effect  to  Date  Upon  Collective  Bargaining 

In  Seattle : — In  the  fall  of  1919,  Associated  Industries,  in  its 
"open  shop"  campaign,  began  a  policy  of  writing  no  more  agree- 
ments with  organized  labor.  Fund  was  raised  to  support  one  set 
of  employers  after  another  in  strikes  which  must  result  when 
contracts  expired  and  new  agreements  were  to  be  made.  In  con- 
nection with  resulting  building  trades  strike,  government  media- 
tor requested  unions  to  call  off  strike,  assuring  them  that  as  soon 
as  men  were  back  at  work,  employers  would  make  agreements. 
Strike  was  called  off,  men  went  back  to  work,  only  to  be  locked 
out  in  large  numbers,  employers  refusing  to  negotiate  over  terms 
of  settlement.  Employers  were  banded  together  in  this  Associa- 
tion by  a  bond  which  pledged  them  to  forfeit  one  hundred  dol- 
lars to  every  employer  in  their  industry  in  case  they  signed  an 
agreement  with  organized   labor.      (Anise,  in   New  York  Call.) 

In  the  Steel  Industry: — United  States  Steel  Corporation  and 
Bethlehem  Steel  Company,  two  largest  manufacturers  of  struc- 
tural steel  in  the  country,  refused  to  sell  steel  to  New  York  and 
Philadelphia  contractors  unless  they  would  agree  to  erect  open 
shop.     National  Fabricators'  Association,  controlling  60  per  cent 


236  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

of  steel  fabricated  in  the  country,  adopted  resolution  in  Novem* 
ber  1919,  recommending  that  members  of  their  Association  ad- 
just their  business  so  that  the  steel  fabricated  by  them  is  erected 
open  shop;  that  their  Executive  Committee  be  instructed  to  use 
all  influence  within  its  power  with  mills,  fabricators,  manufac- 
turers  and   business   associations   to   bring  about   that   policy. 

Eugene  G.  Grace,  President  of  Bethlehem  Steel  Com- 
pany: Policy  of  selling  only  to  open  shop  erectors  was  in- 
augurated about  September  1919  when  American  Federation 
of  Labor  attempted  to  organize  steel  employees;  if  95  per  cent 
of  men  in  their  employ  were  union  men,  they  would  not  deal 
with  union;  even  if  building  operations  stopped  in  New  York 
as   a   result   of   this   policy,   the  policy  would  not  be  changed. 

Paul  Starrett,  of  Fuller  Construction  Company,  New 
York:  Went  to  Mr.  Schwab  and  Mr.  Grace  of  Bethlehem 
Steel  Company  and  pleaded  with  them  to  furnish  him  struc- 
tural steel.  "Air.  Grace  told  me  when  I  spoke  about  the  diffi- 
culty of  getting  steel  that  they  had  just  had  a  big  fight 
to  retain  control  of  their  shops  and  keep  union  domination 
out  and  said :  'Don't  you  imagine  for  a  minute  that  we  are 
going  to  let  you  fellows  build  up  an  organization  of  union  men 
who  can  refuse  to  erect  our  steel  and  force  union  conditions 
in   our   shop.' " 

Minutes  of  a  meeting  of  National  Erectors'  Association, 
held  in  August  1919  read :  "Mr.  Drew  reported  having  seen 
Judge  Gary,  Mr.  Grace  and  Mr.  Farrell,  who  stated  their 
positive  intention  to  prevent  the  unionization  of  shops."  Mr. 
Drew  is  counsel  for  National  Erectors'  Association;  Mr.  Grace 
is  President  of  Bethlehem  Steel  Company;  Mr.  Farrell  is 
President  of  United  States  Steel  Corporation.  (Testimony  be- 
fore Lockwood  Committee,  New  York,  giving  evidence  of  a 
conspiracy  between  three  large  corporations  to  destroy  union- 
ism.) 

Ill  the  Clothing  Industry : — Early  in  1919,  after  six  years' 
steady  organization  Amalgamated  Clothing  Workers  succeeded 
in  having  machinery  set  up  in  New  York  clothing  market 
which  subjected  whole  market  to  such  control  that  individual- 
ism of  both  manufacturers  and  workers  was  curbed,  and  some 
semblance  of  industrial  order  achieved. 

In  September,  1920,  New  York  clothing  manufacturers  issued 
ultimatum    to    Amalgamated    demanding,    among    other    things, 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  237 

return  to  old  piece-rate  or  speeding  up  system,  and  standards  of 
production  for  each  worker,  based  not  on  scientific  analysis  of 
capacity  of  worker,  but  by  rates  prevailing  in  competitive  mar- 
kets. Amalgamated  replied:  "We  believe  that  this  is  no  time 
to  scrap  all  of  the  machinery  of  government  for  the  industry 
which  has  worked  so  successfuly  for  ten  years  in  other  mar- 
kets, and  until  now  in  Greater  New  York.  .  .  To  accede  to 
your  ultimatum  means  not  only  a  return  to  the  old  status  of 
helplessness  of  the  worker  but  also  a  confession  that  govern- 
ment in  industry  is-  impossible.  We  do  not  believe  that  a  re- 
sort to  chaos  is  the  only  way  out.  We  still  stand  on  the  im- 
partial chairman's  suggestion  of  a  'joint  committee  to  be  ap- 
pointed and  charged  with  the  duty  of  ascertaining  existing 
conditions,  determining  the  extent  to  which  production  can  be 
increased,  and  the  means  by  which  these  ends  can  be  secured.' " 

In  December,  New  York  manufacturers  refused  to  place 
their  case  before  impartial  chairman,  dismissed  their  own  la- 
bor staff,  and  locked  out  ten  thousand  employees.  At  same 
lime,  Boston  clothing  manufacturers  broke  off  their  relations 
with  the  Amalgamated. 

It  therefore  appears  that  this  campaign  is  in  part  a  campaign 
not  for  an  open  shop,  hut  for  a  closed  shop  against  union  men. 
Do  the  American  people  want  that  kind  of  a  shop?  To  avoid 
the  autocracy  of  labor,  is  it  necessary  to  submit  to  the  dictation 
of  finance? 

The  Social  Results 

The  social  results  that  are  likely  to  follow  the  estabUshment 
of  the  kind  of  open  shop  at  which  the  aggressive  leaders  of 
this  campaign  are  aiming,  can  be  determined  from  recent  in- 
dustrial history: 

Upon  Welfare  of  Workers: — A  description  of  conditions  in 
clothing  industry  before  organization  of  workers  was  attained. 
They  would  work  seven  days  a  week  and  far  into  night  in 
small  overcrowded  rooms  which  they  rarely  had  time  to  clean, 
often  sleeping  and  preparing  their  meals  in  workroom.  Much 
has  been  written  of  sweat-shops  and  insanitary  tenements  in 
slums.  Few,  however,  have  understood  that  these  conditions 
were  not  only  frightful  in  themselves,  but  that  they  hindered 
the  growth  of  labor  organizations  which  alone  could  effect  last- 
ing and  fruitful  improvements. 


238  SELFXTED    articles 

What  the  "open  shop"  policy  means  in  actual  practice  is  re- 
vealed in  the  Interchurch  Report  on  the  Steel  Strike  of  1919. 
The  United  States  Steel  Corporation  has  from  the  begin- 
ning maintained  this  policy.  Twenty  years  of  experience  of 
such  a  policy  in  this  industry  indicates  what  happens  in  social 
results  among  the  workers — long  hours,  low  wages,  and  bad 
living  and  working  conditions. 

Upon  the  Public  Interests : — President  of  Fuller  Construction 
Company  testifying  before  Lockwood  Committee,  New  York, 
was  asked  the  average  difference  in  cost  of  construction  as  be- 
tween union  and  non-union  labor.  Replied  that  best  erectors 
were  in  union  and  with  good  gang  you  could  save  25  to  35  per 
cent  on  cost  of  erection.  Cited  an  instance :  Hotel  Pennsylvania 
was  erected  under  non-union  conditions.  Hotel  Commodore  un- 
der union  conditions.  Commodore  was  erected  for  $3  less  a 
ton.  (It  could  not  be  inferred  from  this  that  same  thing  neces- 
sarily prevails  in  other  industries — but  appears  to  be  true  here 
where   labor  is   strongly  organized   and   highly  skilled.) 

Witnesses  from  two  construction  companies  testified  that  as 
a  result  of  open  shop  pohcy  forced  upon  them,  equipment  had 
to  be  scrapped,  in  one  instance  to  amount  of  $250,000;  in  an- 
other $100,000. 

Experience  of  Steel  Corporation  in  maintaining  "open  shop" 
policy  indicates  that  this  policy  is  not  enforced  without  an 
army  of  spies.  Such  spy  systems  established  by  this  and  other 
corporations  breed  distrust,  suspicion  and  disruption  in  com- 
munity life.  United  States  Steel  Corporation  still  defends  this 
policy  by  implication  by  sending  out  an  address  of  Reverend  E. 
Victor  Bigelow,  in  which  he  supports  this  system  without 
qualification. 

Upon  Liberties  of  the  People: — Maintenance  of  "open  shop" 
poHcy  in  large  industries  involves  loss  of  civil  liberties  not  only 
for  workers  but  for  other  citizens.  This  is  evident  in  situation 
in  steel  towns  revealed  in  Interchurch  investigation  of  steel 
strike,  where  whole  communities  were  found  to  have  been  de- 
prived of  their  rights  of  free  speech  and  free  assemblage. 

In  West  Virginia  at  present  time,  determination  of  coal 
operators  to  maintain  "open  shop"  conditions  is  leading  to  a 
situation  which  threatens  civil  strife  in  that  area. 

In  Alabama,  military  rule  has  supplanted  civil  administration 
because  coal  operators  are  determined  to  keep  out  the  union. 


THE   CLOSED    SHOr  239 

Is  the  public  ready  to  substitute  for  the  collective  agree- 
tncnt  of  labor  the  closed  shop  of  industrial  autocracy  with  its 
social  consequences?  Is  it  willing  to  have  these  social  results 
extended? 

The   Greater   Question 

The  most  important  question  involved  in  this  campaign  is 
the  question  of  whether  the  American  people  desire  a  steady, 
peaceful  growth  of  constitutional  government  in  industry.  That 
development  is  inevitable.  The  only  question  to  be  decided  is 
how  it  is  to  come. 

The  small  business  man  who  is  determined  to  retain  the 
right  to  hire  and  fire  at  will,  to  "run  his  own  business  in  his 
own  way,"  and  the  big  corporation  that  is  determined  to  crush 
organized  labor  are  both  hindering  decent  progress. 

The  policy  of  "dealing  with  union  men  as  employees,  but 
not  as  members  of  a  union"  contributes  nothing  to  the  finding 
of  a  way  out  of  the  present  industrial  chaos.  It  halts  further 
development,  and  weakens  the  progress  already  made  in  such 
basic  industries  as  clothing,  mining  and  transportation. 

Europe  has  been  through  this  development  ahead  of  '  this 
country.  Its  way  out  has  not  been  by  the  path  lof  the  destruc- 
tion of  labor  organization.  On  the  contrary,  every  plan  ad- 
vanced by  any  European  government  for  dealing  with  indus- 
trial questions  recognizes  as  a  first  principle  the  necessity  of 
using  the  labor  organizations  as  a  basis  for  industrial  progress. 
These  governments  are  dealing  with  organized  labor  and  hold- 
ing it  responsible  for  certain  results.  The  English  government 
has  just  made  a  proposal  to  the  building  trades  organization 
offering  to  pay  a  stated  sum  for  every  ex-service  man  they 
will  take  into  the  trade  and  train. 

A  Dutch  employer  at  the  First  International  Industrial 
Conference  in  Washington,  D.  C,  commented:  "What  a  surpris- 
ing country!  I  am  back  in  the  Stone  Age.  Here  in  the  United 
States  I  find  you  have  not  settled  the  question  of  collective 
bargaining.  What  a  country!  You  have  a  steel  strike  because 
Mr.  Gary  will  not  talk  to  his  workmen !"  He  went  off  laughing, 
because  it  seemed  amusing  to  him  to  find  himself  in  a  country 
where  such  questions  are  unsettled.  He  went  off  laughing, 
and  his  laughter  was  the  judgment  of  Europe. 


240  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

THE  OPEN  SHOP  CONTROVERSY ' 

Washington,  D.  C. — Practically  every  priest  in  the  United 
States  has  received  a  copy  of  an  article  reprinted  from  Industry. 
[Reproduced  in  this  volume].  The  article  is  entitled  "The 
Great  Open  Shop  Conspiracy."  It  is  a  criticism  of  the  state- 
ments on  the  "open  shop"  movement  issued  by  the  Social 
Action  Department  of  the  National  Catholic  Welfare  Council 
and  the  Social  Service  Commission  of  the  Federal  Council  of 
Churches  (Protestant).  It  was  written  by  Henry  Harrison 
Lewis,  the  owner  of  the  magazine,  but  the  cost  of  sending 
copies  of  it  to  the  clergy  of  the  country,  Catholic  and  Protes- 
tant, was,  according  to  Mr.  Lewis,  defrayed  by  other  persons 
and  organizations.  However,  the  important  matter  is  not  who 
paid   for  distributing  the   article,  but  what  the   article   says. 

On  the  first  page  of  the  reprint  we  find  this  sentence:  "It 
has  been  said  that  the  councils  really  represent  the  policy  and 
beliefs  of  small  groups  instead  of  the  great  body  of  church- 
men." No  doubt,  this  "has  been  said,"  but  until  we  know  who 
said  it,  we  shall  not  take  the  trouble  to  make  a  formal  reply. 

The  principal  criticisms  made  by  Mr.  Lewis  in  the  reprint 
are  three :  First,  an  unwarranted  charge  oi.  "widespread  con- 
spiracy is  made  against  the  employers  of  the  country,"  second, 
both  the  catholic  and  protestant  statements  failed  to  support 
this  charge  by  "specific  facts" ;  third,  this  action  is  one  of 
"the  many  mstances  of  failure  on  the  part  of  ecclesiastical  and 
other  bodies  actually  to  investigate  conditions  before  making 
their  definite  announcements." 

The  first  criticism  can  be  disposed  of  very  briefly.  The 
statement  of  the  Social  Action  Department  did  not  use  the 
word  "conspiracy."  The  only  expression  in  that  statement 
which  could  conceivably  give  rise  to  such  an  interpretation  is 
the  phrase  "certain  groups  of  American  employers."  Surely 
it  is  possible  to  point  out  that  certain  groups  of  American  em- 
ployers are  promoting  the  "open  shop"  without  representing 
their  action  as  "conspiracy." 

Mr.  Lewis  complains  that  in  the  statements  made  by  the 
Catholic  and  Protestant  bodies  there  was  no  eftort  "to  give 
specific  facts,  or  specific  names,  or  specific  localities.  That  was 
scarcely  possible  in  a  short  statement.     Neither  is  it  necessary. 

^  Statement  issued  by  the  National  Catholic  Welfare  Council.  Feb- 
ruary,   1921. 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  ^  241 

The  essence  of  the  charge  made  by  the  Social  Action  Department 
against  the  "open  shop"  movement  is  that  this  movement  is 
really  directed  "against  unionism  itself  and  particularly  against 
collective  bargaining."  In  the  attempt  to  refute  this  charge, 
Mr.  Lewis  quotes  the  declaration  of  several  chambers  of  com- 
merce, employers'  associations,  and  tv^o  or  three  other  organi- 
zations. He  points  out  that  none  of  these  contains  any  declara- 
tion against  labor  interests  as  such  and  he  declares  that  many 
of  these  organizations  represent  other  interests  as  well  as  em- 
ployers. Therefore,  he  contends  it  is  not  fair  to  say  that  the 
"open  shop"  movement  is  either  antagonistic  to  unionism  or  sup- 
ported only  by  certain  groups  of  American  employers.  The  So- 
cial Action  Department  did  not  make  the  latter  assertion.  It 
merely  declared  that  certain  groups  of  American  employers  are 
using  the  "open  shop"  movement  to  cripple  the  unions.  We  are 
quite  well  aware  that  some  organizations,  both  of  employers  and 
of  other  industrial  groups,  probably  have  no  such  purpose. 

Nevertheless,  we  would  point  out  that  Mr.  Lewis  is  utterly 
mistaken  when  he  says  that  "a  poHcy  adopted  by  the  United 
States  Chamber  of  Commerce  really  represents  the  sense  of  a 
community."  Notwithstanding  its  sprinkling  of  professional 
men,  the  average  local  chamber  of  commerce  represents  the 
viewpoint  of  the  employing  class  exclusively,  whenever  it  makes 
a  pronouncement  concerning  the  relations  between  capital  and 
labor.  The  same  is  true  of  the  American  Bankers  Association, 
and  to  a  lesser  degree  of  that  small  body  of  rural  aristocrats 
known  as  the  National  Grange.  Mr,  Lewis  will  have  to  produce 
other  organizations  in  support  of  the  "open  shop"  before  he  can 
fairly  claim  to  have  shown  that  the  movement  represents  the 
general  public.  Those  that  he  cites  reflect  only  the  viewpoint 
of  the  employing  class,  and  those  small  groups  who  have  social 
and  business  affiliations  with  that  class. 

This  brings  us  to  the  main  issue,  namely,  whether  the  "open 
shop"  movement  as  conducted  by  certain  groups  of  strong  em- 
ployers, seeks  to  cripple  the  labor  unions.  The  "specific  facfs" 
supporting  an  affirmative  answer  are  abundant.  They  can  be 
given  here  only  in  summary  form.  In  general,  few  if  any  of  the 
organizations  that  have  declared  in  favor  of  the  "open  shop" 
avow  their  attitude  toward  collective  bargaining.  This  is  the 
vital  issue.  Unless  the  members  of  a  union  are  permitted 
to  deal  with  the  employer  as  a  body,  their  union  membership 
is  futile.     An  "open  shop"  which  allows  the  employees  to  belong 


242  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

to  a  union,  but  does  not  permit  the  union  to  deal  with  the 
employer  as  a  union,  is  worthless.  Not  only  has  no  "open  shop" 
organization  declared  that  the  "open  shop"  employer  would 
deal  with  the  union,  but  every  such  organization  that  has  con- 
fessed its  attitude  on  this  subject,  has  admitted  that  this  prac- 
tice would  not  be  tolerated. 

Now  for  a  few  "specific  facts,"  Testifying  before  the  Lock- 
wood  Housing  Committee  in  New  York,  December  i6th,  1920, 
Mr.  Eugene  R.  Grace,  President  of  the  Bethlehem  Steel  Cor- 
poration, declared  that  he  maintained  an  "open  shop,"  but  that 
he  would  not  deal  with  the  unions,  even  though  they  embraced 
95  per  cent  of  his  employees.  Not  only  did  he  maintain  that 
kind  of  "open  shop"  in  his  own  corporation,  but  in  conjunction 
with  other  makers  of  steel,  he  refused  to  sell  his  product  to 
builders  who  would  not  adopt  the  same  policy.  A  few  days 
later,  before  the  same  committee,  Mr.  Cheney,  the  Secretary 
of  the  Erectors'  Association,  admitted  that  this  organization, 
together  with  the  National  Fabricators'  Association,  had 
formally  adopted  the  "open  shop"  policy,  and  that  with  these 
organizations  this  poHcy  meant  not  only  no  deahngs  with  the 
union,  but  no  employment  of  union  members.  He  confessed 
that  "an  open  shop  is  a  shop  in  which  the  foremen  are  expected 
to  see  to  it  that  there  are  no  union  men."  These  organizations 
include  the  majority  of  all  the  important  steel  producers  and 
structural  steel  erectors  of  the  country.  In  the  meeting  at 
which  this  policy  was  adopted,  the  United  States  Steel  Corpora- 
tion took  a  prominent  part,  but  required  the  fact  of  its  parti- 
cipation to  be  kept  out  of  the  minutes.  At  the  National  Con- 
ference of  State  Manufacturers  Associations  held  in  Chicago, 
January  12th,  several  manufacturers  objected  to  a  definition  of 
the  "open  shop"  which  would  permit  the  employment  of  union 
members.  As  a  result,  the  conference  "voted  for  an  open  shop, 
minus  definition."  Evidently  this  body  did  not  believe  in  an  "open 
shop"  which  would  permit  deahng  with  the  unions.  The  Asso- 
ciated Employers  of  Indianapolis  is  one  of  the  most  active  ad- 
vocates of  the  "open  shop."  Its  Secretary,  Mr.  Andrew  J.  Allen, 
describes  an  "open  shop"  as  one  in  which  the  employer  makes  con- 
tracts with  the  employees  only  as  individuals.  Evidently  this 
excludes  any  form  of  collective  bargaining.  The  Manufacturers 
News  Informs  us  that  Mr.  Allen  "has  perhaps  done  more  to 
promote  the  open  shop  cause  than  any  other  Individual  In  the 


THE   CLOSED   SHOP  243 

country."  Mr.  William  H.  Barr,  President  of  the  National 
Founders  Association,  denies  that  the  "open  shop"  movement  is 
hostile  to  the  unions,  yet  asserts  that  "labor  unionism  is  synony- 
mous with  strikes."  It  is  not  difficult  to  determine  his  concep- 
tion of  an  '.'open  shop." 

These  declarations  and  attitudes  represent  several  very 
powerful  corporations  and  employers'  organizations.  Apparently 
they  are  typical  of  substantially  all  the  larger  industrial  groups 
which  are  promoting  the  "open  shop"  movement.  Several  rep- 
resentatives of  employer  groups  have  protested  to  the  Social 
Action  Department  against  its  declaration  that  the  "open  shop" 
is  intended  to  destroy  the  unions.  Upon  examination,  every 
one  of  them  admitted  that  the  "open  shop"  which  they  are 
advocating  would  not  permit  dealing  with  the  unions.  The 
spokesman  for  the  National  Association  of  Manufacturers  was 
informed  that  if  that  body  would  make  a  pubhc  statement  to 
the  effect  that  the  "open  shop"  is  consistent  with  proportional 
representation  by  the  union  employees  in  a  system  of  collective 
bargaining,  even  confined  to  the  individual  shop,  the  Social 
Action  Department  would  withdraw  its  statement  against  the 
"open  shop."  This  gentleman  declared  that  the  National  Asso- 
ciation of  Manufacturers  would  make  no  such  statement,  and 
admitted  that  this  organization  really  desired  to  cripple  the 
unions.  Up  to  the  present,  no  authorized  representative  of  an 
"open  shop"  organization  has  denied  that  collective  bargaining 
with  the  union  is  inconsistent  with  the  "open  shop." 

Mr.  Lewis  has  been  fair  enough  to  refrain  from  asserting 
that  the  statement  of  the  Social  Action  Department  favors  the 
closed  shop.  Other  critics  have  been  less  honest.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  there  are  two  passages  in  the  statement  which,  by  im- 
plication at  least,  favor  a  genuine  "open  shop,"  that  is,  one  in 
which  no  discrimination  is  practiced  against  either  union  or  non- 
union employees,  but  in  which  the  union  members  are  permitted 
a  share  in  collective  bargaining  with  the  employer. 

It  cannot  be  too  often  repeated  that  the  issue  is  not  that  of 
mere  employment  or  non-employment  of  union  members,  but  of 
collective  bargaining  between  the  employer  and  the  union  em- 
ployees. Pope  Leo  XIII  declared  that  workingmen's  associa- 
tions ought  to  be  such  as  "to  furnish  the  best  and  most  suitable 
means  for  helping  each  individual  member  to  better  his  con- 
dition to  the  utmost  in  body,  mind,  and  property."     Who  will 


244  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

dare  assert  that  this  requirement  is  reaUzed  in  a  labor  union 
which  is  not  permitted  to  deal  with  the  employer?  To  quote 
the  most  important  single  sentence  in  the  statement  made  by  the 
Social  Action  Department:  "Of  what  avail  is  it  for  workers  to 
be  permitted  by  their  employers  to  become  members  of  the 
unions  if  the  employers  will  not  deal  with  the  unions?"  Whether 
by  accident  or  by  design,  Mr.  Lewis  did  not  attempt  to  answer 
this  question.     Did  he  ignore  it  deliberately? 

The  third  criticism  which  he  made  was  to  the  effect  that 
ecclesiastical  organizations  frequently  discuss  industrial  subjects 
without  sufficient  knowledge  of  the  facts.  This  is  the  superior 
and  patronizing  attitude  often  taken  by  socalled  "practical 
men."  The  truth  is  that,  as  a  rule,  clergymen  who  make  pro- 
nouncements in  this  field  know  the  facts  only  too  well.  And 
their  knowledge  is  more  adequate  than  that  of  the  "practical 
man"  because  they  have  endeavored  impartially  to  see  both  sides 
of  the  question,  to  know  all  the  facts. 


STATEMENT  BY  THE  METHODIST 
FEDERATION  FOR  SOCIAL  SERVICE  ^ 

An  extensive  campaign  is  being  carried  on  throughout  the 
country  for  the  "open  shop" — the  "American  plan  of  employ- 
ment." It  appears  in  various  localities  under  the  direction  of 
local  organizations  of  manufacturers,  or  manufacturers  and 
merchants,  and  chambers  of  commerce.  It  is  being  promoted 
by  national  organizations  and  publications.  This  movement  is 
the  embodiment  of  a  determination  repeatedly  expressed  in  war 
time  by  certain  leaders  of  finance  and  industry  to  "put  labor 
in  its  place  after  the  war."  It  is  in  effect  a  declaration  of  war 
against  trade  unions.  It  proposes  to  destroy  the  gains  that 
were  made  in  stabilizing  industry  and  establishing  social  security 
by  the  War  Labor  Board. 

This  "open  shop"  campaign  appeals  for  the  support  of  the 
public  on  the  ground  that  it  is  not  opposed  to  trade  unions,  but 
is  merely  resisting  the  evils  involved  in  the  "closed  shop"  and 
it    has    gained    the    support    of    many   who    sincerely    have    this 

'  The  statement  was  prepared  by  Secretary  Harry  F.  Ward  and  Presi- 
dent Fr?ncis  J.  McConnell,  of  the  Methodist  Federation  for  Social  Service, 
ISO  Fifth  Avenue,  New  York  City,  under  the  authorization  of  the  Execu- 
tive   Committee    and   Council   at   a   meeting   held   on    November    22,    1920. 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  245 

purpose  in  mind.  Yet  in  the  ranks  o£  its  leaders  are  to  be  seen 
those  who  have  long  been  aggressively  fighting  labor  organiza- 
tions as  such,  and  among  its  active  supporters  are  those  whose 
"open  shop"  policy  is  to  refuse  union  men  employment,  to  dis- 
charge men  because  of  union  membership,  or  to  require  an  ap- 
plicant to  sign  a  contract  pledging  himself  against  affiliation 
with  a  union. 

This  "open  shop"  campaign  claims  to  stand  on  a  moral  prin- 
ciple, "the  American  principle  of  employment."  This  is  declared 
to  be  the  right  to  hire  individuals  without  regard  to  their  mem- 
bership in  labor  organizations.  The  leaders  of  this  campaign 
announce  themselves  as  champions  of  the  rights  and  freedom 
of  the  unorganized  man ;  but  the  kind  of  freedom  and  protec- 
tion that  the  so-called  "individual  rights"  policy  actually  gives 
to  the  ^unorganized  man  can  be  ascertained  by  reading  the  re- 
port of  the  Interchurch  Movement  on  the  Steel  Strike.  In  the 
steel  industry  this  labor  policy,  conceived  in  the  same  spirit  as 
the  present  "open  shop"  campaign  and  defended  on  the  same 
ground  of  right  and  principle,  has  meant  the  destruction  of  all 
labor  organization,  long  hours,  low  standards  of  living,  and  the 
denial  of  civil  liberties  to  entire  communities.  The  practical 
results  of, this  "right"  of  a  powerful  corporation  to  deal  with 
wage  workers  as  individuals  do  not  justify  it  as  either  a  right 
or  a  principle. 

Concerning  the  necessity  in  these  days  of  corporate  industry 
both  for  the  protection  of  the  worker  and  the  security  of  society 
of  something  more  than  the  old-fashioned  policy  of  "hiring  and 
firing"   the   churches  have  repeatedly  expressed  themselves. 

The  Federal  Council  of  1916  declared : 

The  first  method  of  realizing  democracy  in  industry  is  through  col- 
lective bargaining.  This  gives  wage  earners  as  a  group  the  right  to  de- 
termine in  conference  with  their  employers  the  terms  and  conditions  oi 
employment. 

The  General  Conference  of  1912  stated: 

The  autocratic  control  of  industry  by  any  group  of  men  without  re- 
gard to  the  rights,  either  of  other  groups  who  contribute  to  the  indus- 
trial  process   or   of   the   public   is   contrary   to   Christian    standards. 

The  Board  of  Bishops  declared  in  1919: 

We  favor  collective  bargaining  as  an  instrument  for  the  attainment 
of  industrial  justice  and  for  training  in   democratic  procedure. 

In  the  light  of  these  standards  of  our  church  it  seems  to  us 
that  the  test  of  an  "open  shop  policy"  is  its  willingness  to  enter 


246  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

into  agreements  with  organized  labor  which  leave  open  to  the 
non-union  man  the  opportunity  of  employment;  as  for  instance, 
the  agreement  of  the  railroads  with  the  brotherhoods  or  the 
preferential  shop  of  the  garment  trades.  In  the  light  of  what 
has  happened  in  the  steel  industry,  where  the  so-called  American 
principle  of  employment  has  been  fully  demonstrated  over  a 
period  of  years,  it  also  seems  quite  clear  to  us  that  the  success 
of  the  present  "open  shop"  campaign  would  mean  the  establish- 
ment of  a  closed  shop — closed  against  union  labor,  and  would 
return  large  numbers  of  wage  earners  to  the  living  standards 
of  sweated  industries.  In  the  light  of  what  is  now  happening 
in  certain  local  mining  districts  in  West  Virginia,  we  regard  it 
as  certain  that  the  consummation  of  this  "open  shop"  campaign 
will  perpetuate  and  increase  chaos,  anarchy  and  warfare  in  our 
industrial  life,  will  intolerably  delay  the  development  of  con- 
stitutional democracy  in  industry,  which  the  churches  have  de- 
clared to  be  the  Christian  method  of  industrial  control. 


THE  LABOR  UNION  UNDER  THE  SOCALLED 
OPEN  SHOP  1 

I  call  your  attention  to  the  following  article  which  appeared 
on  the  Correspondence  Page  of  the  Nation  on  August  i6,  1922, 
(115:168)  the  italics  being  mine: 

The  Colorado  Ftiel  and  Iron  Company 
To  THE  Editor  of  The  Nation: 

Sir  :  In  reference  to  your  article  of  December  28  entitled 
Damaged  Panaceas  it  may  interest  you  to  know  that  the  follow- 
ing information  regarding  the  plan  of  employees'  representa- 
tion instituted  in  the  coal  mines  of  the  Colorado  Fuel  and  Iron 
Company  has  been  issued  in  Denver  by  the  management  of  the 
company : 

Our  plan  of  joint  representation  of  employees  and  manage- 
ment provides  that  "There  shall  he  no  discrimination  by  the 
management  or  by  any  of  the  employees  on  account  of  mem- 
bership or  non-membership  in  any  society,  fraternity,  or  union." 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  a  considerable  portion  of  our  miners  are, 

^  Statement  submitted  by  Honorable  Lawrence  Beecher,  August  17,  192^, 


THE   CLOSED   SHOP  247 

at  least  intermittently,  members  of  the  United  Mine  Workers 
of  America.  In  the  past,  except  in  1919,  coal  miners  in  Colo- 
rado, both  union  and  non-union,  have  quite  generally  responded 
to  strike  calls  issued  by  the  international  organization.. 

During  the  present  strike  all  of  our  properties  have  operated 
continuously  with  the  exception  of  two  mines  in  one  district 
where,  for  more  than  thirty  years,  the  men  have  generally  been 
active  members  of  the  union.  At  these  two  mines  secret  votes 
taken  before  April  i  showed  a  majority  in  favor  of  remaining 
at  work,  and  since  then  there  have  been  some  indications  of  a 
desire  on  the  part  of  the  miners  to  resume  operations. 

In  our  two  larger  fields,  the  Trinidad  and  Walsenburg  dis- 
tricts, our  coal  output  since  April  i  has  been  normal.  In  fact, 
it  has  exceeded  the  demands  of  our  markets.  The  few  men  who 
refrained  from  work  the  first  day  or  two  of  April  have  practi- 
cally all  returned  and  some  of  the  mines  are  operating  with 
larger  average  forces  than  before  the  strike. 

New  York,  July  15,  1922  John  D.  Rockefeller^  Jr. 

From  this  statement  it  is  clear  that  the  so-called  open  shop 
has  succeeded  in  completely  breaking  the  power  of  the  union 
in  the  case  of  the  Colorado  Fuel  and  Iron  Co.,  so  completely 
that  it  is  a  matter  of  pride  and  satisfaction  to  the  employer  of 
which  he  must  make  public  boast  because  he  has  accomplished 
the  job  so  completely  and  so  easily  in  an  industry  where  for  so 
many  years  organized  labor  was  able  to  fight  for  its  just  rights 
bravely  and  stubbornly  even  against  private  armies,  hired  slug- 
gers, and  corrupted  local  officials.  It  does  not  seem  to  matter 
much  whether  the  so-called  open  shop  is  in  reality  a  preferen- 
tial non-union  shop,  or  an  anti-union  shop,  as  in  the  case  of 
the  Steel  Trust,  or  whether  it  is  served  up  as  Employee  Repre- 
sentation, a  la  McKenzie  King.  The  results  of  the  so-called 
open  shop  are,  in  the  long  run,  practically  the  same,  namely, 
that  the  power  of  the  union  is  broken,  even  though  a  consider- 
able portion  of  the  employees  may  be,  at  least  intermittently, 
members  of  the  union.  While  the  United  Mine  Workers  of 
America  are  on  a  five  month's  strike,  fighting  for  a  living  wage 
and  an  American  standard  of  living,  the  mines  of  the  Colorado 
Fuel  and  Iron  Co.  have  been  operated  continuously,  thanks  to 
the  open  shop. 


248  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

BRIEF  EXCERPTS 

Widespread  systems  of  espionage  are  an  integral  part  of  the 
anti- union  policy  of  great  industrial  corporations. — Public  opin- 
ion and  the  steel  strike,  p.  i. 

In  so  far  as  that  plan,  called  "American,"  involves  the  ex- 
tinction of  unionism  it  does  not  command  the  approval  of  li- 
beral minded  employers.  The  union  has  been  a  powerful  agency 
in  safeguarding  the  rights  of  the  worker. — Editorial.  New 
York  Times.  April  4,  1922. 

The  principle  of  the  open  shop  provides  for  absolute  autoc- 
racy of  the  employer.  He  fixes  the  wage  rates,  regulates  the 
hours  of  service  and  working  conditions  to  suit  himself,  re- 
cognizes no  claims  based  upon  senior  rights,  and  if  he  chooses 
to  discharge  an  employee  for  cause  or  without,  there  is  no 
redress  for  the  victim. — T.  P.  IVhelan.  Locomotive  Engineers' 
Journal  54:877.  October,  1920. 

Trade  Unionism  is  effective  solely  by  virtue  of  the  principle 
of  collective  bargaining  and  collective  action.  As  far  as  the 
open  shop  campaign  aims  to  nullify  or  destroy  that  principle, 
it  aims  at  the  nulhfication  or  destruction  of  trade  unionism  it- 
self. Carefully  concealed  as  this  fact  is  in  most  pubUc  discus- 
sions of  the  subject,  it  is  nevertheless  the  heart  and  substance 
of  the  whole  matter. — Waldo  R.  Browne.  What's  zvhat  in  the 
labor  movement,  p.  359. 

The  Central  Conference  of  American  Rabbis  at  their  recent 
convention  resolved  that  without  the  union  all  labor  would  still 
be  the  victim  of  the  long  day,  the  insufficient  wage  and  kindred 
injustices,  that  under  the  present  organization  of  society  labor's 
only  safeguard  against  a  retrogression  to  former  inhuman  stand- 
ards is  the  union. — Report  of  the  Proceedings  of  ihe  Forty-first 
Annual  Convention  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor.  1921. 
p.  385. 

The  open  shop  movement  is  fundamentally  a  lie,  and  opposed 
to  the  best  interests  of  the  organized  worker.  The  open  shop 
idea  surrounds  itself  with  a  lure  of  promises,  but  it  does  not 
come    out    directly   and    tell    to    what    degree    it    will    recognize 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  249 

the  collective  bargaining  rights  of  the  trade  union  man.  It  is 
aimed  intentionally  to  undermine  organized  labor. — Rev.  John 
A.  Ryan,  Professor  of  Industrial  Ethics  and  Moral  Philosophy, 
Catholic  University,  Washington,  D.  C.  Cleveland  Press.  Sep- 
teinher  23,  1921. 

Speaking  of  the  open  and  the  closed  shop,  Archbishop  Cur- 
ley,  the  second  ranking  prelate  of  the  Catholic  Church  in 
America,  said  in  his  address  before  the  annual  convention  of 
the  Maryland  State  and  District  of  Columbia  Federation  of  La- 
bor in  Baltimore  on  March  8th,  1922:  "To  my  mind,  the  pur- 
pose of  the  whole  open  shop  movement,  which  has  been  gain- 
ing impetus  during  the  last  few  years  and  must  be  backed  by 
great  wealth,  is  not  to  bring  freedom  to  the  workingmen  of 
America,  as  the  advocates  of  the  movement  would  have  you  all 
believe,  but  its  purpose  is  to  kill  unionism." — Locomotive  Engi- 
neers' Journal  56:238.  April,   1922. 

A  worker  who  insists  on  his  personal  rights,  irrespective 
of  the  rights  of  others,  to  work  for  whom  he  pleases  and  on 
terms  which  please  him,  is  the  anarchist  of  industry,  as  are 
also  those  who  praise  and  protect  him  in  his  assumed  right. 
On  grounds,  then,  of  ethical  implication,  and  in  the  interest 
of  justice  and  industrial  peace,  the  "free  American  working- 
man"  and  the  non-union  employer  become  fit  subjects  for  coer- 
cion. .  .  The  non-unionist,  or  scab,  is  a  grafter  to  all  union  men. 
He  enjoys  the  rewards  of  improved  conditions  which  have 
resulted  from  sacrifice  of  labor  unionists  without  himself  hav- 
ing shared  or  suffered  in  their  sacrifices. — Helen  Marot.  Ameri- 
can labor  unions,  p.  121. 

A  movement  is  now  on  foot  which,  misusing  the  name  of 
"open  shop"  and  "American  plan,"  is  smashing  labor  organiza- 
tions throughout  the  country  by  locking  the  unions  out  and 
forcibly  deunionizing  the  workmen.  Together  with  the  abuses 
of  unionism  this  movement  is  destroying  the  constructive  sub- 
stance of  unionism  and  stifling  the  just  democratic  aspirations 
of  the  workmen.  It  is  undermining  the  confidence  of  labor  in 
employers  and  ruining  the  foundation  for  cooperation  be- 
tween them.  Similar  campaigns  in  former  periods  of  depres- 
sion have  only  resulted  in  redoubled  growth  of  unionism  and 


250  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

the  adoption  by  it  of  more  extreme  measures  in  the  periods 
of  prosperity  which  followed  and  there  is  no  reason  to  believe 
that  the  results  of  this  campaign  will  be  different.  Campaigns 
of  this  nature  are  leading  to  oppression  by  employers  and  are 
playing  into  the  hands  of  revolutionary  elements.  Thus  the 
cycle  continues  with  the  participants  in  continuous  and  sense- 
less warfare. — Report  of  the  Committee  on  Industrial  Relations 
of  the  New  Jersey  State  Chamber  of  Commerce.  New  Jersey 
8:79.  July,  1 92 1. 

The  movement  to  force  estabhshment  of  the  open  shop  in 
Cleveland  has  fallen  flat.  More  than  a  year  ago  the  American 
Plan  Association  came  to  town  headed  by  a  "brass  band"  of 
publicity  and  the  announcement  that  it  was  "going  to  make 
Cleveland  an  open  shop  town."  It  started  calling  in  employers 
and  trying  to  organize  them  back  of  a  big  movement  to  wreck 
organized  labor  and  put  in  the  so-called  "American  Plan"  that 
found  an  ardent  supporter  in  the  Chamber  of  Commerce.  But 
it  didn't  work.  The  American  Plan  Association  tried  to  solicit 
funds  from  employers  to  finance  the  movement.  That  failed. 
They  tried  to  organize  big  Citizens'  Committees  to  make  sur- 
veys that  would  declare  that  the  open  shop  was  best.  That  fell 
through.  They  brought  an  open  shop  expert  here — a  man  by 
the  name  of  William  Frew  Long.  He  worked  hard  and  dili- 
gently. He  tried  to  persuade  big  employers  here.  But  all  to 
no  avail.  And  so  a  year  and  a  half  of  continuous  effort  on 
the  part  of  the  American  Plan  Association  finds  itself  where 
it  started — not  even  begun. — Charles  Smith.  Weekly  Bulletin 
2:4.    April  20,  1922. 

The  views  of  President  Gompers,  of  the  American  Federa- 
tion of  Labor,  regarding  the  open  shop,  are  summed  up  in  an 
article  he  wrote  in  the  June  Federationist  on  "Industrial  Man- 
agement," as  follows: 

"The  so-called  open  shop  movement  is  solely  an  attack  upon 
organized  labor.  The  organized  employers  who  are  giving  their 
energy  and  money  to  'open  shop'  campaigns  have  no  more 
thought  of  actually  establishing  a  condition  where  union  men 
will  be  permitted  to  work  freely  than  they  have  of  divorcing 
themselves  from  the  idea  of  making  profit.  The  campaign  in 
itself  is  a  falsehood.    The  idea  is  to  establish  a  shop  in  which 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  251 

a  union  man  may  not  work.  These  organized  employers  talk 
about  freedom  of  work,  but  they  mean  freedom  of  employers  to 
deny  work,  to  withhold  the  right  to  work  from  workers.  Union 
workers  would  be  penalized." 

John  L.  Lewis,  defeated  candidate  for  presidency  of  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor  and  president  of  the  United 
Mine  Workers  of  America,  recently  said  "the  open  shop, 
of  course,  means  the  non-union  shop." — Philadelphia  Public 
Ledger.  July  3,  192 1. 

The  open  shop  furnishes,  and  always  has  furnished,  the 
best  possible  means  of  destroying  the  organization  of  the  men. 
The  closed  shops  are  the  only  sure  protection  for  the  trade 
agreements  and  for  the  defense  of  the  individual.  When  the 
master  is  left  to  hire  or  discharge  either  union  or  non-union 
men  as  he  sees  fit,  he  naturally  discharges  the  man  that  he 
thinks  most  hostile  to  his  business  and  employs  the  one  that 
will  be  subservient  to  his  will.  This  does  not  come  from 
the  inherent  or  natural  hardness  of  the  master,  but  from 
the  hard  facts  of  life.  In  the  management  of  complex  af- 
fairs accidents  and  mistakes  occur.  Under  the  open  shop 
it  is  easy  to  find  reasons  for  discharging  the  union  man,  to  fix 
the  blame  for  mistakes  upon  him,  and  it  is  likewise  easy  to 
find  reasons  for  replacing  him  with  a  non-union  man.  In 
reality  the  open  shop  means  only  the  open  door  through  which 
the  union  man  goes  out,  and  the  non-union  man  comes  in  to 
take  his  place.  This  is  not  theory  alone.  The  open  shop  means 
uncertainties,  anxiety,  a  shifting  basis  for  the  principles  of 
trade  unionism.  The  history  of  trade  unionism  has  proven 
this  fact  from  the  beginning,  and  it  is  recognized  by  every 
union  man.  The  open  shop  is  a  constant  menace  to  his  in- 
terests.— Clarence  Darrow.  American  Magazine  72  .SSO.  Septem- 
ber, 191 1. 

A  crusade  is  on  foot  to  universalize  the  open  shop.  Manu- 
facturers have  organized  locally  and  nationally  and  propagan- 
dists have  been  employed  to  establish  the  open  shop.  The  sad 
condition  of  unemployment  and  dire  necessity  of  millions  of 
men  are  being  exploited  by  enemies  of  union  labor.  In  this 
attempt  to  destroy  organized  labor  and  to  give  organized  capital 
complete  control,  the  public  is  vitally  concerned,  for  in  the  long 


252  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

run  it  is  the  public  which  pays  the  bill  for  every  industrial  dis- 
pute. The  protagonists  of  the  open  shop  have  appropriated 
the  name  American.  Theirs  is  called  the  American  plan,  im- 
plying that  any  other  is  un-American.  All  the  talk  about  the 
open  shop  being  American  and  patriotic  is  unmitigated  balder- 
dash and  particularly  pernicious  at  this  time. 

I  believe  the  issue  of  open  shop  versus  closed  is  not  the  real 
issue.  It  is  only  the  projected  issue.  The  real  issue  is  collec- 
tive bargaining  and  the  right  of  the  representation  of  labor  in 
the  management  of  industry.  In  practise  the  open  shop  destroys 
the  value  and  the  effectiveness  of  all  labor  organizations.  The 
open  shop  v^ould  destroy  trade  unionism  in  the  United  States. 

Until  some  other  agency  is  devised  for  adequate  protection 
of  the  workingman,  the  trade  union  is  a  national  necessity.  It 
is  the  laborer's  sole  safeguard  against  exploitation.  The 
workingman  knows  that  all  gains  touching  higher  standards 
of  living,  better  wages,  better  hours  and  better  working  con- 
ditions have  been  won  solely  thru  efforts  and  struggles  of  or- 
ganized labor,  and  he  will  fight  in  defense  of  his  organization. 
The  right  of  labor  to  organize  is,  of  course,  beyond  question. 
At  a  time  when  business  men  are  organizing,  when  farmers 
have  their  unions,  it  would  be  folly  to  expect  the  working- 
man  to  entrust  his  destiny  to  the  mercy  of  altruistic  employers. 

From  the  point  of  view  of  public  welfare,  I  believe  the 
crushing  of  trade  unionism  would  be  a  calamity  of  the  first 
magnitude. — Rabbi  A.  H.  Silver.  Locomotive  Engineers'  Jour- 
nal  55  :62.  January,  1922. 


NEGATIVE  DISCUSSION 

THE  ECONOMICS  OF  THE  OPEN  SHOP 
QUESTION  ^ 

(An  analysis  of  the  methods  by  which  closed 
shop  industrial  policies  increase  costs  to  the 
consumers.  The  building  industry  is  the  best 
single  barometer  of  the  industrial  situation.  Com- 
parisons between  cities  where  building  is  on  a 
open  shop  basis  and  on  a  closed  shop  basis  re- 
veal 56  per  cent  more  building,  34  per  cent  higher 
money  wages  and  18  per  cent  greater  average 
savings  deposits  in  the  open  shop  towns  as  com- 
pared with  126  per  cent  more  unemployment  and 
rent  increases  thirty  times  as  great  in  the  closed 
shop  cities.) 

Basis  of  Discussion 

Arguments  both  for  and  against  the  open  shop  and  the 
closed  shop  may  be  made  from  many  different  angles.  We 
may,  for  example,  discuss  the  religious,  ethical,  legal,  or  social 
aspects  of  the  problem.  Is  the  closed  shop  contrary  to  the 
principles  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  and  the  Con- 
stitution? Does  the  open  shop  restrict  the  right  of  association? 
These  suggest  a  few  of  the  bases  of  argument ;  the  present 
discussion  will  be  confined  to  a  single  phase — the  economic. 

To  avoid  confusion  it  is,  of  course,  necessary  to  present  def- 
initions. 

The  Open  Shop  exists  wherever  and  whenever  the  following 
labor  principles  enunciated  by  the  Anthracite  Coal  Strike  Com- 
mission, appointed  by  President  Roosevelt,  in  1902,  are  practiced : 

No  person  shall  be  refused  employment,  or  in  any  way  discriminated 
against  on  account  of  membership  or  non-membership  in  any  labor  or- 
ganization, and  there  shall  be  no  discrimination  against,  or  interference 
with,  any  employee  who  is  not  a  member  of  any  labor  organization  by 
members   of  such   organization. 

1  Noel  Sargent,  Manager  Open  Shop  Department,  National  Association 
of    Manufacturers.     April    18,    1922. 


254  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

The  Bridgemen's  Magazine,  official  organ  of  the  Iron  Work- 
ers' Union,  defines  the  open  shop  as  follows  (issue  of  Decem- 
ber,  1905)  : 

If  the  employer  will  not  yield  without  coercion,  and  the  union  is 
unable  to  coerce  him,  then  non-unionists  as  well  as  unionists  may  obtain 
employment  and  the  establishment  is  consequently  known  as  an  open  shop. 

The  Bridgemen's  Magazine  defines  the  closed  shop: 

Closed  shop,  then,  is  the  term  for  a  shop,  factory,  store  or  other 
industrial  place  where  workmen  cannot  obtain  employment  without  being 
members  in  good  standing  of  the  labor  union  of  their  trade.  This  is 
demanded  by  the  unions.  .  .  They  insist  that  the  shop  shall  be  closed 
against  all  employees  who,  not  already  belonging  to  the  union  of  their 
trade,    refuse    to  join    it. 

The  Printing  Pressmen,  Constitution  and  By-Laws,  1909, 
declare : 

The  words  "union  pressroom"  as  herein  employed  shall  be  construed 
to  refer  only  to  such  pressrooms  as  are  operated  wholly  by  union  em- 
ployees, in  which  union  rules  prevail,  and  in  which  the  union  has  been 
formally   recognized  by   the   employer. 

The  Open  Shop  Committee  of  the  National  Association 
of  Manufacturers  declared  at  the  1921  meeting  of  the  organi- 
zation that  an  open  shop  is  one  in  which  "workmen  are  em- 
ployed without  respect  to  their  membership  or  non-member- 
ship in  any  lawful  organization  operating  in  a  lawful  manner." 

Public  Welfare  Paramount 

In  applying  the  test  of  sound  economics  to  the  closed  shop 
and  the  open  shop  we  can  argue  from  the  basis  of  employer, 
employee,  or  public  welfare.  We  shall  here  place  our  chief 
emphasis  upon  the  public  welfare,  believing  that  no  industrial 
system  or  policy  can  really  benefit  society  if  it  harms  the  gen- 
eral public. 

Our  preliminary  test  is  furnished  by  WilUam  Green,  a  vice- 
president   of   the   American   Federation  of   Labor:. 

The  labor  costs  of  manufactured  articles  are  passed  on  to  the  con- 
sumer. The  public  at  large  therefore  pays  the  labor  cost  of  everything 
manufactured. 

The  above  is  good  economic  doctrine  and  we  can  then  ask 
ourselves  this  question:  Does  the  closed  shop  increase  manu- 
facturing costs  in  ways  which  do  not  exist  where  open  shop 
conditions   prevail? 


THE   CLOSED   SHOP  255 

The   Sympathetic   Strike. 

Tlie  closed  shop  causes  delays  and  interruptions,  which,  of 
course,  increase  manufacturing  costs.  The  sympathetic  strike  is 
one  of  the  methods  of  delay  and  interruption  prevailing  under 
the  closed  shop.  No  definition  of  the  "sympathetic  strike"  is  as 
lucid  as  an  actual  instance.  A  few  years  ago  in  Chicago  the 
apartment  house  janitors  went  on  strike  in  the  winter  to  obtain 
certain  demands.  The  milk  and  grocery  wagon  drivers,  because 
of  "sympathy,"  then  refused,  although  they  had  no  quarrel  with 
their  own  employers  to  deUver  any  supplies  to  these  apartment 
houses,  endeavoring  in  this  way  to  bring  pressure  upon  the 
owners  to  agree  to  the  janitors'  demands. 

By  far  the  most  important  weapon  employed  by  the  build- 
ing trades  unions  and  the  one  upon  which  their  power  chiefly 
rests  is  the  sympathetic  strike.  From  the  mere  quitting  of  work 
by  men  in  other  trades  because  of  the  sympathy  with  some  trade 
that  may  be  at  odds  with  the  employer,  the  sympathetic  strike 
has  been  developed  to  the  point  where  at  the  word  of  a  central 
authority  all  of  the  trades  upon  the  work  may  be  called  on 
strike  upon  the  complaint  of  a  single  business  agent  and  with- 
out any  vote  of  the  rank  and  file  of  the  unions,  and  often,  it 
is  alleged,  without  their  knowledge  of  the  issues  involved.  This 
action  may  be  extended  from  the  particular  work  to  all  of  the 
work  of  the  contractor  in  the  locality,  and  through  action  of 
the  international  unions  the  strike  may  be  further  extended 
to  include  all  of  the  contractor's  work  in  every  city  in  the  coun- 
tiy. 

In  the  interests  of  fairness  any  categorial  denials  of  such 
statements  by  the  leading  champions  of  the  closed  shop  must  be 
carefully  considered. 

A  Denial  and  Its  Answer 

Thus  we  find  the  President  of  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor,  representing,  as  the  spokesman  for  that  body,  the 
largest  combination  of  organizations  supporting  the  closed  shop, 
writing  in  System  for  April  1920: 

A  sympathetic  strike  is  absolutely  against  the  principles  of  the  Ameri- 
can   Federation   of   Labor. 

Yet  an  examination  of  the  only  resolutions  passed  on  the 
subject  at  the  conventions  of  the  American  Federation  of  La- 
bor reveal  that  its  forty-year  president  seems  to  have 
misconstrued  the  attitude  of  the  body. 


256  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

In  1890  it  was  declared  that  help  should  be  given  sister 
unions  in  case  of  sympathetic  strikes. 

In  1895  ^"d  1902  it  was  declared  that  trade  unions  should 
not  tie  themselves  up  with  contracts  so  that  they  cannot  help 
each  other  when  able. 

In  1916  unions  were  advised  to  enter  into  no  agreements 
calling  for  the  surrender  of  any  right  to  strike  in  support  of 
other  workers. 

Jurisdictional  Disputes 

Of  similar  nature  is  the  "jurisdictional  dispute."  The  mere 
signing  of  an  agreement  with  the  union  by  no  means  assures 
the  employer  of  continuous  operation  until  the  expiration  of 
the  contract.  Perhaps  the  plumbers'  union  says  to  the  steam- 
fitters'  union  that  the  latter  cannot  do  a  certain  kind  of  work. 
Or  the  carpenters,  lathers  and  plasterers  may  have  a  dispute 
as  to  which  union,  according  to  their  own  rules,  is  permitted  to 
do  a  certain  task.  Building  operations  have  been  stopped  for 
weeks  or  even  months  in  New  York,  Chicago,  and  San  Fran- 
cisco because  of  such  disputes.  These  disputes  are  not  with  the 
employer  as  to  whether  union  men  shall  be  employed;  the 
unionists  dispute  among  themselves,  violence  often  occuring,  as 
to  ivhat  union  men  shall  work.  Many  of  the  disputes  are 
settled  locally;  others  affect  workers  all  over  the  country.  The 
president  of  the  Plumbers'  Union  stated  in  1914  before  the  In- 
dustrial Relations  Commission  that  the  loss  in  dollars  and  cents, 
to  both  workers  and  builders,  by  jurisdictional  disputes  is  "of 
such  magnitude  that  nobody  has  yet  undertaken  the  task  of 
computation." 

Sympathetic  strikes  and  jurisdictional  disputes  increase  costs 
of  operation.  They  seldom  occur  where  open  shop  conditions 
prevail. 

Increasing   the  Number  of   Unskilled 

Forcing  employers  to  depend  more  and  more  upon  unskilled 
or  semi-skilled  labor  also  increases  operating  costs.  Such  is 
the  result  of  the  apprenticeship  rules  of  the  closed  shop  unions. 
About  half  of  the  unions  affiliated  with  the  American  Federa- 
tion of  Labour  have  such  rules.  Nor  is  there  uniformity  in 
these  rules  even  in  a  single  union.     The  carpenters  and  cigar- 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  257 

makers,  for  example,  permit  the  local  unions  to  determine  the 
ratio  of  apprentices  to  journeymen.  The  bricklayers  do  like- 
wise, prescribing,  however,  a  three  year  minimum.  The  results 
of  such  policies  are  pointed  out  by  Professor  J.  M.  Motley, 
in  his  work  Apprenticeship  in  Ameriam  Trade  Unions  published 
by  Johns  Hopkins  University. 

In  the  same  trade,  however,  the  term  varies  in  different  localities. 
Thus  the  term  of  apprenticeship  in  carpentry  in  Tacoma,  Washington,  is 
three  years,  while  in  many  eastern  cities  four  years  are  required.  In  the 
plumbing   trade    the    term    varies   from    two    to   six    years. 

A  prominent  economist,  Professor  Fetter  of  Princeton,  has 
aptly  described  in  one  of  his  works  the  eflPect  of  the  apprentice- 
ship system  as  at  present  practiced : 

Unions  often  limit  the  number  of  apprentices  and  determine  who 
shall  have  the  privilege  of  learning  the  trade. 

It  has  at  times  been  asserted  that  these  rules  exist  only  as 
"scraps  of  paper"  and  in  actual  practice  have  no  damaging  ef- 
fects. This  claim  does  not,  however,  seem  well-founded.  Thus 
a  special  committee  of  the  Boston  Chamber  of  Commerce  in  a 
report  submitted  in  1921  said : 

The  building  industry  has  suffered  from  a  lack  of  apprentices.  .  . 
Union  rules  and  trade  agreements  do  restrict  the  number  of  apprentices 
to  be  employed. 

The  Industrial  Division  of  the  Cincinnati  Chamber  of  Com- 
merce on  November  22,   1921,   declared : 

Restriction  of  apprentices  has  caused  a  scaicity  of  skilled  mechanics 
in  certain  trades  and  likewise  creates  higher  costs  and  waste  by  making 
it  necessary  that  a  skilled  mechanic  be  a  helper  and  hand  tools  and 
materials    to    another    skilled    mechanic    doing   the    work. 

The  Cleveland  Chamber  of  Commerce  in  a  report  issued 
earlier  in  the  year  stated : 

The  public  interest  demands  that  the  supply  of  skilled  labor  be  main- 
tained in  each  trade  by  liberal  apprenticeship  rules;  but  the  closed  union 
shop    policy    is    to    stifle    the    apprenticeship    system. 

Output  Restriction 

Perhaps  the  allegation  as  to  the  injustice  of  the  closed  shop 
of  which  we  hear  most  is  "restriction  of  output."  Here,  too, 
we  have  a  denial  from  union  executives  that  such  a  practice  ex- 
ists. The  President  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  in 
Industrial  Management  for  'April  i,  1921,  writes  : 

Trade  unionism  is  interested  vitally  in  increasing  the  volume  of  pro- 
duction. It  rejects  wholly  the  false  doctrine  of  restriction  of  output  as 
a   means   of   helping   the   worker. 


258  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

Yet  reliable  evidence  leads  us  to  the  conclusion  that  Mr. 
Gompers  is  in  error  when  he  asserts  that  the  "false  doctrine"  of 
output  restriction  has  been  "wholly"  rejected  by  trade  unionism. 

The  official  report  for  the  fiscal  year  1920  of  the  Construc- 
tion Division  of  the  United  States  Army  says  (italics  ours)  : 

While  rates  and  materials  have  increased  throughout  the  United  States 
it  is  also  a  fact,  that  production  has  decreased  to  such  an  extent  that 
it  is  very  marked  in  certain  localities.  Bricklayers  who  at  one  time  laid 
an  average  of  fifteen  hundred  bricks  per  day  on  straight  walls,  are  now 
averaging  between  six  and  seven  hundred;  plumbers  who  roughed  in  and 
finished  five  fixtures  in  five  days  have  shown  a  decided  decrease  in  the 
work  performed.  The  carpenters,  too,  who  fitted,  hung,  and  locked  four 
and  five  large  doors  per  day  seem  to  be  no  more,  and  so  on  down  the 
line.  The  universally  attractive  high  standard  wages  paid  to  organised 
labor  have  placed  the  second  rate  craftsmen  on  a  par  with  the  high 
class,  efficient  artisans  and  instead  of  the  average  day's  work  being  raised 
it  is  proportionately  lowered  because  the  first-class  journeymen  must  carry 
along  his  less   efficient   brother,   which    results   in   the  above   condition. 

The  government,  where  it  employs  laborers  direct,  both  skilled  and 
unskilled,  cannot  discriminate  either  in  favor  of  or  against  organized 
tradesmen,  but  it  can  on  its  maintenance  and  utilities  work,  hire  and  pay 
competent,  qualified  men  based  on  their  efficiency  rather  than  any  set 
standard  of  wages  which  might  be  adopted  by  a  body  of  men  regardless 
of  the  ability  of  men  who  are  to  receive  that  rate.  The  injustice  works 
two  ways,  both  to  the  detriment  of  the  efficient  workmen  and  also  to 
the  employer  Kwho  must  carry  along  an  inefficient  employee  at  the  higher 
rate  simply  because  of  his  affiliations  with  an  ^'organisation.  While  it  may 
be  common  practice,  nevertheless,  experience  has  taught  us  that  no  single 
schedule  is  equally  adaptable  for  all  trades  from  a  standpoint  of  produc- 
tion. 

Results  of  Restrictive  Policies 

The  Brooklyn  Eagle  of  December  15,  1921,  listed  the  fol- 
lowing union  practices  shown  by  the  Lockwood  investigation 
to  exist  in  Brooklyn.  Such  practices  have  been  clearly  shown 
to  exist  in  Cincinnati,  Boston,  Chicago  and  elsewhere. 

1.  Union  plasterers  demanding  and  getting  $16  and  $18  a  day  on  threat 
of  strike. 

2.  Union  painters  demanding  and  getting  $12  a  day  on  threat  of 
strike. 

3.  Union  rules  limiting  size  of  paint  brushes  to  4^2  inches  in  width 
to   prevent  speed. 

4.  Union  rules  stating  amount  of  work  painters  and  plasterers  may 
do   in   a  day, 

5.  Union  bricklayers  cutting  their  work  from  1,800  bricks  a  day  in 
1914  to  500  or  1,000  in   1921. 

6.  Union  plasterers  refusing  to  admit  one  new  member  since  19 15, 
cutting  their  membership  smaller  and  smaller  each  year. 

7.  Union  rules  compelling  builder  to  allow  contractor  to  buy  material 
with   an   intermediate   profit   for   himself. 

8.  Union  rules  compelling  builder  to  allow  contractor  to  engagt 
workmen    with    an    intermediate    profit    for    himself. 

9.  Union  rule  compelling  builder  to  do  business  all  his  life  with  one 
contractor,   no    matter   how   poor   his   work   or   how   high   his   charges. 

10.  Union  rules  refusing  to  permit  plasterers  to  work  more  than 
five   days   a  week. 

11.  Union  practice  of  fining  contractors  and  builders  for  irregular 
work   done   by    its   own   men. 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  250 

12.  Union  rule  that  upon  a  contractor  defaulting  a  job  the  work 
must   be   completed   by   the   union   at   its   own   exorbitant   day   wage   scale. 

13.  Union  rule  that  its  members  must  not  be  allowed  to  install  toilet, 
lavatory,  and  other  plumbing  eciuipment  that  has  been  assembled,  rapidly 
and  economically,   at    the   factory. 

14.  Union  rule  ihat  every  two  plumbers  must  have  a  helper,  a  man 
who  is  not  allowed  even  to  touch   the   tools. 

Some  advocates  of  the  closed  shop  maintain  that  in  a  dis- 
cussion of  that  subject  it  is  irrelevant  to  discuss  apprentice- 
ship, output  limitation,  etc.  But  the  employer  who  signs  a 
closed  shop  agreement  with  the  union  automatically  accepts 
thereby  the  working  rules  and  practices  of  the  union.  The 
consideration  of  these  rules  and  practices  cannot  be  divorced 
from  the  economic  consideration  of  the  closed  shop. 

The  "Freeze-Out"  Game 

The  mere  establishment  of  collective  bargaining  does  not 
insure  economic  justice.  Much  of  the  collective  bargaining 
which  is  pointed  to  as  an  example  of  peace  and  harmony  is 
really  a  conspiracy  against  the  outsider.  In  a  study  of  the 
closed  shop,  published  in  191 1  by  Johns  Hopkins  University, 
Dr.  Stockton  says : 

Neither  employers  nor  unions  have  had  much  to  say  concerning  the 
advantage  of  "exclusive  agreements".  .  .  Employers  who  are  parties 
to  them  obtain  a  great  advantage  over  competitors  in  localities  where 
the  unions  are  strong.  But  while  the  closed  shop  under  such  conditions 
may  be  an  advantage  to  those  employers  with  whom  a  union  agrees  to 
deal  exclusively,  the  public  interest  suffers  inasmuch  as  competition  is 
effectively   stifled. 

The  union's  members  agree  to  work  only  for  members  of 
an  employers'  group;  and  the  employer's  group  in  turn  agrees 
to  employ  only  members  of  the  union.  The  closed  shop  control 
of  the  unions  thus  protects  the  employers'  groups  from  outside 
competition  and  gives  them  a  monopoly.  They  in  turn  are  able 
to  concede  the  demands  of  the  unions  no  matter  how  exorbitant, 
since  the  burden  can  be  passed  on  to  the  public.  Speaking 
of  such  an  agreement  in  the  marble  industry,  a  government  re- 
port issued  in  1904  says: 

The  effect  of  the  closed  agreement,  as  far  as  the  workmen  in  the 
union  are  concerned,  is  to  give  them  steady  employment,  to  keep  the 
older  men  in  the  shops,  to  give  all  the  members  a  sense  of  security  in 
their  jobs,  and  to  reduce  the  speed  of  the  members  to  what  they  con- 
sider a  fair  day's  work.  .  .  The  amount  of  work  done  by  marble  tile 
setters  in  New  York  is  only  one-half  of  what  should  be  expected.  Yet 
by  excluding  marble  cut  outside  New  York  and  excluding  outside  con- 
tractors from  entering  New  York,  the  marble  employers  are  able  to  re- 
coup   themselves    from    the    building   industry    of    New    York. 


26o  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

United  Against  the  Public 

In  other  words,  the  closed  shop,  by  which  employers  agree 
to  employ  only  union  men,  is  used  to  raise  prices  to  the  gen- 
eral public.  The  closed  shop,  by  which  workers  can  be  re- 
fused to  employers  (even  where  they  are  willing  to  hire  union 
men),  is  a  powerful  weapon.  The  union's  ability  to  prevent 
any  outsider  from  getting  labor  in  a  particular  market  is  a 
misuse  of  the  closed  shop  power  of  the  union  against  the 
rights  of  the  general  public.  If  it  were  not  for  the  closed 
shop  and  this  power  to  prevent  outsiders  from  getting  labor  the 
employers  combinations  disclosed  by  the  Lockwood  investiga- 
tion would  never  have  been  able  to  force  a  practical  monopoly 
in  their  various  trades.  The  logical  development  of  the  closed 
shop  idea  is  the  bargain  between  unions  and  employers  to  ex- 
clude workers  from  jobs  and  employers  from  business. 

How  Prices  Are  Raised 

We  have  seen  that  in  the  following  ways  the  closed  shop 
operates  to  increase  the  costs  of  production,  which  a  vice- 
president  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  assures  us  are 
"passed  on  to  the  consumer." 

1.  Sympathetic  strikes. 

2.  Jurisdictional   disputes. 

3.  Apprenticeship  system,  limiting  the  number  of  skilled 
workers. 

4.  Output   restriction. 

5.  Exclusive  agreements,  eliminating  competition  and 
creating  powerful  monopolies. 

We  would  naturally  expect  to  find  that  from  such  policies  the 
following  results  would  ensue  :- 

1.  Lessened  building,  due  to  high  costs. 

2.  Higher  rents. 

Wc  would  assert  with  confidence  that  such  would  inevitably 
be  the  results  of  the  closed  shop  policies.  Fortunately  we  can 
do  more  than  make  assertions  based  on  deductive  theory:  the 
facts  of  industry  clearly  reveal  just  such  results.  » 

Reducing  Construction 

An  examination  of  building  permits  for  the  year  1921  in 
thirty  leading  American  cities  brings  out  forcibly  the  fact  that 
closed  shop  practices  restrict  the  amount  of  construction  and 
continue   the   structural   shortage   which  we  all  know  to   exist. 


THE   CLOSED   SHOP 


2O1 


In  fifteen  towns  where  building  is  on  an  open  shop  basis  and 

free  from  closed  shop  restrictions  the  per  capita  value  of 
building  permits  during  the  year  was  $64;  in  fifteen  towns 
having  closed  shop  building  conditions  the  per  capita  value  of 
building  permits  was   only  $41. 

Where  Building  Is  Closed  Shop 

Year's  Building  Permits 

Town                                                 Population                 Permits  Per  Capita 

Cleveland     796,836                $46,531,323  S8 

Indianapolis    314,194                 16,872,240  53.7 

Newark,    N.    J 414,216                 21,578,221  52 

Kansas    City,    Mo 324,410                  16,024,175  49 

Chicago    2,701,705                125,028,0x0  46 

Cincinnati     401,247                  17,682,510  44 

Dayton     152,559                    6,105,061  40 

Pittsburgh-McKeesport     635,124                  25,257,261  39 

Syracuse     171,717                    5,828,598  34 

Louisville    234,89 1                    7,428,300  32 

New   Orleans    387,219                   8,037,959  21 

Providence 237,595                    4,897,800  20.6 

St.    Louis    772,897                  12,324,133  16 

Scranton    137,783                   2,073,197  i5 

Butte      41,611                        102,342  2 

Totals     7,724,004             $314,771,130  40.75 

Where    Building    Is    Open    Shop 

Year's  Building  Permits 

Town                                                 Population                 Permits  Per  Capita 

Los  Angeles    576,073               $82,713,386  143 

Oklahoma   City    91,258                   7,300,317  80 

Minneapolis     380,582                 23,388,055  62 

St.     Paul     234,595                  14,362,181  61 

Detroit      993,678                 58,086,081  59 

Atlanta     200,616                  11,236,776  56 

Milwaukee     457,147                 24,976,025  55 

Richmond 171,667                   9,292,603  54.1 

San    Antonio    161,379                    7,995,188  50 

Grand    Rapids    137,634                   5,634,182  40.93 

Seattle    315,652                 12,862,425  40.74 

Duluth      98,917                    3,518,464  36 

Salt    Lake    City    118,110                    3,436,985  29 

Spokane     104,437                   2,124,037  20 

Akron     208,435                    3,782,548  18 

Totals     4,250,180             $270,709,253  63.69 

The  following  notes  explain  certain  features  of  the  above 
tables : 

1.  Building  permit  values  are  taken  from  the  American  Contractor, 
published  by  F.  W.  Dodge  Co.,  in  nearly  every  instance.  In  a  few 
cases  they  are  from  official  figures  sent  us  by  mail  from  the  different 
cities.                                                               • 

2.  The  population   figures  are  those  of  the   1920  census. 

3.  The  figure  for  Pittsburgh  building  is  given  in  the  American  Con- 
tractor. The  population  of  McKeesport,  coupled  with  Pittsburgh  in  the 
unemployment  figures  of  the  Department  of  Labor,  is  7.8  per  cent  that 
of  Pittsburgh,  and  its  building  has  been  assumed  to  be  at  the  same 
ratio. 


262  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

4.  For  two  of  the  cities,  Scranton  and  San  Antonio,  figures  for  only 
eight  months  were  available.  The  other  four  months  were  added  in  as 
50  per  cent  of  the  eight  months  total.  Newark  figures  of  only  nine  months 
were  available,  and  the  figure  for  the  final  three  months  of  the  year  was 
taken    as    a    third    of   the   first   nine   months. 

5.  The  Providence  figure  is  200  per  cent  of  the  value  of  "contracts 
awarded"  during  the  first  six  months  of  192 1.  It  was  impossible  to  obtain 
the  figures  for  "building  permits"  in  Providence.  While  it  is  impossible 
to  specify  for  a  given  city,  we  are  informed  that  generally  speaking  "con- 
tracts awarded"  total  higher  than  "building  permits,"  so  that  it  cannot  be 
justly  claimed  that  the  Providence  figures  are  designedly  presented  to 
the  detriment  of  the  "closed  shop." 

6.  The  cities  listed  are  not  "hand-picked"  as  is  evidenced  by  the 
fact  that  twenty-five  of  the  thirty  are  among  the  fifty  largest  cities  in  the 
United  States;  twenty-one,  or  seven  out  of  each  ten,  are  among  the 
forty  largest  cities.  It  is  a  well  known  principle  of  statistics  that  when 
a  sufficiently  large  number  of  objects  are  compared  local  and  special 
factors    are    eliminated    as    determinants    of    the    final    averages. 

7.  If  building  is  75  per  cent  "open"  a  city  is  placed  in  the  "open 
shop"   group;   if  75  per  cent   "closed,"   it  is  put   in  the  "closed  shop"  class. 

8.  Many  of  the  cities  in  which  building  is  on  a  "closed  shop"  basis 
are   strongly   "open   shop"   in   the   manufacturing   industries. 

9.  Several  of  the  cities  now  in  the  "closed  shop"  group  will  prob- 
ably be  out  of  that  group  by  the  end  of  1922.  In  several  cities  local 
movements,   not   yet   at   a  head,   will   assist  in   the   transformation. 

10.  The  largest  city  of  the  country.  New  York,  was  deliberately 
omitted  because  of  unusual  conditions  existing  there;  due  to  the  passage 
in  February  192 1,  of  a  Tax  exemption  law,  which  was  designed  to  stimu- 
late new  building  and  which  is  having  that  effect.  New  York  building  is 
at  an  artificial  figure,  therefore,  and  the  inclusion  of  New  York  would, 
because  of  its  large  population,  raise  the  closed  shop  average  to  a  level 
which  would  not  represent  the  actual  average  of  closed  shop  communities 
where   artificial   factors   do   not   exist. 

Less  building  in  towns  where  construction  is  on  a  closed 
shop  basis  means,  of  course,  the  erection  of  fewer  dwellings 
and  higher  rents. 

Closed  Shop  Conditions  Increase  Rents 

It  is  impossible  to  obtain  accurate  figures  of  rent  increases 
and  decreases  for  all  of  the  thirty  towns  previously  considered. 
However,  the  United  States  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics  pre- 
sents in  the  February  issue  of  the  Monthly  Labor  Review  figures 
giving  rent  changes  from  December  1920  to  December  1921  in 
six  of  the  open  shop  cities  and  in  nine  of  the  closed  shop 
communities. 

Two  of  the  open  shop  towns  show  rent  decreases  in  the 
year — 8  per  cent  in  Detroit  and  4  per  cent  in  Seattle.  In  the 
other  four  rents  increased  in  percentage  as  follows : — Atlanta 
I  per  cent;  Richmond  7  per  cent;  Minneapolis  7  per  cent;  Los 
Angeles  1 1  per  cent. 

In  all  of  the  closed  shop  'communities  rents  increased,  the 
percentages  of  increase  being  as  follows:  Cleveland  i  per  cent; 
Cincinnati  3  per  cent ;  Kansas  City  4  per  cent ;  Indianapolis  8 
per  cent;   New    Orleans    13   per  cent;    St.   Louis    15   per  cent; 


THE   CLOSED   SHOP 


263 


Pittsburgh  15  per  cent;   Scranton  22  per  cent;   Chicago  24  per 
cent. 

Jt  will  be  noted  that  in  five  of  the  nine  closed  shop  cities 
the  percentage  of  increase  was  greater  than  in  the  open  shop 
city  having  the  highest  percentage  of  increase. 

Assuming  that  in  December  1920  every  resident  of  the 
fifteen  cities  paid  $100  rent  we  can  determine  the  group  in- 
creases during  the  year.  Thus,  every  resident  of  Detroit  will 
be  assumed  to  pay  $92  rent  December  1921  and  those  of  Cin- 
cinnati $103. 

Construction   Open   Shop 


Per  Cent 

Rent 

Rent 

Town 

Population 

Increase 

Dec,  1920 

Dec,  192 1 

Detroit 

,  .     993,678 

8  (Dec) 

99,367,800 

91,418,376 

Seattle    

. .     315.652 

4   (Dec) 

31,565,200 

30,302,592 

Atlanta     .  . .  . , 

,  .     200,616 

I 

20,061,600 

20,262,216 

Richmond    .  . . 

.  .     171,667 

7 

17,166,700 

18,368,369 

Minneapolis    . 

.     380,582 

7 

38,058,200 

40,722,274 

Los  Angeles   . 

•     576,073 
..2,638,268 

II 
0.5 

57,607,300 

63,944,103 

Totals    . 

263,826,800 

265,017,930 

Construction    Closed 

Shop 

Per  Cent 

Rent 

Rent 

Town 

Population 

Increase 

Dec,  1920 

Dec,  192 1 

Cleveland     .  . , 

. .     796,836 

I 

79,683,600 

80,480,436 

Cincinnati    .  .  . 

.     401,247 

3 

40,124,700 

41,328,441 

Kansas    City 

. .     324,410 

4 

32,441,000 

33,738,640 

Indianapolis    , 

•     314,194 

8 

31,419,400 

33,932,952 

New  Orleans 

. .     387,219 

13 

38,721,900 

43,755,747 

St.    Louis     . . 

• .     772,897 

15 

77,289,700 

88,883,155 

Pittsburgh    ,  .  , 

. .     588,343 

15 

58,834,300 

67,659,445 

Scranton 

•  •     137,783 

22 

13,778,300 

16,809,426 

Chicago     .... 

..2,701,705 

24 
IS 

270,170,500 

335,011,420 

Totals   .  . 

..6,424,634 

642,463,400 

741,599,662 

The  group  percentages  of  increase  were  derived  from  com- 
parisons of  the  totals  of  the  last  two  columns.  They  reveal 
that  in  the  closed  shop  communities  the  rent  increase  in  1921 
averaged  thirty  times  as  great  as  in  those  towns  where  con- 
struction was  on  an  open  shop  basis. 

Does  the  Closed  Shop  Aid  the  Worker? 

The  most  frequent  plea  made  in  behalf  of  the  closed  shop 
is  that  it  benefits  the  worker. 

But  it  is  by  no  means  apparent  that  the  closed  shop  ad- 
vocates are  upon  sure  ground  in  their  reliance  upon  the  benefits 
to  a  minority  of  society  as  the  chief  justification  of  their 
policy. 


264  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

We  would  naturally  expect  to  find  that  closed  shop  prac- 
tices such  as  we  examined  would  bring  increased  unemploy- 
ment due  to  (a)  curtailment  of  building  operations  and  (b) 
the  increased  number  of  unskilled  workers  existing  as  a  result 
of  the  union  apprenticeship  limitations. 

The  United  States  Department  of  Labor  presented  to  the 
National  Unemployment  Conference  last  October  figures  as  to 
the  number  of  unemployed  in  the  leading  cities.  Comparisons 
between  the  two  groups  of  towns  previously  considered  reveal 
an  extremely  interesting  and  important  situation. 
Pivotal  Aspect   of   Building  Industry 

We  must  first,  however,  make  it  clear  that  we  arc  quite 
justified  in  taking  as  a  basis  for  selection  of  communities  the 
building  situation. 

Building  is  the  key  of  the  industrial  structure.  Almost 
eleven  million  persons  (either  as  workers  or  as  members  of 
a  worker's  family)  derive  their  living  through  construction. 
It  is  estimated  that  50  per  cent  of  all  security  issues  (state, 
municipal,  railroad  and  industrial)  in  1920  were  for  construc- 
tion in  some  form  or  other.  A  report  issued  by  the  Com- 
mittee on  Statistics  and  Standards  of  the  United  States  Cham- 
ber of  Commerce  declares : 

Construction  would  seem  to  be  the  barometer  of  our  industrial  life. 
When  depression  strikes  construction,  it  rocks  the  entire  industrial  structure 
and  "good  times"  undergo  a  process  of  metamorphosis  which  is  conducive 
to  acute  conditions.  But  when  the  tide  turns,  construction  is  the  first  to 
be  carried  with   the   rising  flood,   and  other  industries  follow  in   its  wake. 

This  Committee  included  such  eminent  economists  and  edu- 
cators as  Albert  Ross  Hill,  president  of  the  University  of 
Missouri;  N.  I.  Stone,  labor  manager  of  Hickey-Freeman  Com- 
pany, Rochester  and  formerly  chief  statistician  of  the  United 
States  Tariff  Board ;  L.  D.  H.  Weld,  formerly  Professor  of  Eco- 
nomics both  at  Minnesota  and  Yale  Universities;  and  M.  S. 
Wildman,  Professor  of  Economics  at  Stanford  University. 

The  emergency  program  for  the  immediate  relief  of  idle 
workers  promulgated  by  the  National  Conference  on  Unemploy- 
ment, September  30th,   192 1,  also  declared    (section  11)  : 

The  greatest  area  for  immediate  relief  of  unemployment  is  in  the  con- 
struction industry,  which  has  been  artificially  restricted  during  and  since 
the   war. 

Wesley  C.  Alitchell  in  his  book  on  Busi>ness  Cycles  empha- 
sizes (p.  593)  the  importance  of  building  construction  volume 
as  a  barometer  of  business  conditions.  Both  the  Babson  and 
Brookmire   economic   services   include   the   volume  of  building 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  265 

permits  among  the  data  upon  which  predictions  are  based.  So 
does  the  Canadian  Bureau  of  Statistics  and  Professor  Warren 
M.  Persons  of  Boston  University. 

Beyond  question,  the  building  industry  is  the  key  of  the  in- 
dustrial situation. 

In  cities  where  building  is  on  a  closed  shop  basis  unemploy- 
ment is  126  per  cent  greater  than  in  cities  where  open  shop  con- 
ditions prevail  in  the  building  trades. 

The  accompanying  tables,  comparing  the  same  fifteen  open 
shop  building  cities  with  the  fifteen  communities  where  build- 
ing is  on  a  closed  shop  basis  prove  conclusively  the  above  state- 
ment. 

Wher£  Building   Is  Open   Shop 

Per  Cent 
of  Population 

Town                                                       Idle  Population  Idle 

Duluth    7,000  98,0 17  7.1 

Detroit     50,000  993,678  5.0 

Akron     9,550  208,435  4-6 

Milwaukee 20,600  457,147  4.5 

St.   Paul 9.500  .  234.S9S  4-o 

Oklahoma    City    3,210  91,258  3.5 

Richmond     S.300  171,667  3.1 

Atlanta 5,200  200,616  2.6 

Salt    Lake    City     2,860  118,110  2.4 

Seattle    7,240  315,652  2.3 

Spokane      2,437  104,437  2.3 

Los  Angeles    10,950  576,073  1.9 

San    Antonio     2,515  161,379  1.6 

Grand     Rapids     2,000  137,634  1.5 

Minneapolis     5,000  380,582  1.3 

Totals     143,362  4,250,180  3.4 

Where    Building    Is    Closed    Shop 

Per  Cent 
of  Population 
Town  Idle  Population  Idle 

Pittsburgh-McKcesport      ..; 85,000  635,124  13,4 

Cleveland     104,00c  796,836  13.0 

Scranton  16,020  137,783  ti.6 

Newark,  N.J 47,31,  414,216  11.4 


Butte 


4. 570  41,611  10.9 


P.^y^.o"    •. 16,400  152,559  lo.s 

Cincinnati     37,600  401,247  9-3 

g^-    .^o"'s     68,500  772,897  8.8 

Providence    19,640  237,505  8.3 

Indianapolis     25.000  314,191  80 

^yp^"«e     12,200  171,717  7.*i 

)f'^^^^  , 134,584  2,701,705  4.9 

New    Orleans      15,150  387,219  l^ 

Kansas    City,    Mo 9,000  •    324,410  2.8 

5,050  234,891  2.2 


Louisville 


"^0**'^     600,025  7,723,048 


7-7 


266  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

Paper  or  Money  Wages  Bestf 

The  answer  of  the  closed  shop  advocates  is  that  the  closed 
shop  workers  receive  higher  wages.  The  American  Contractor 
in  a  recent  issue  presents  statistics  as  to  building  wages  pre- 
vailing in  different  cities  December  31,  1921.  Figures  were 
presented  for  nine  of  our  open  shop  cities,  and  for  eight  of 
the  closed  shop  cities.  For  purposes  of  comparison,  the  author 
has  selected  six  occupations — carpenters,  hod  carriers,  plasterers, 
painters,  bricklayers,  and  plumbers.  The  average  hourly  wages 
were  as  follows  (in  two  of  the  cities,  both  upon  an  eight- hour 
basis,  the  "day"  rate  instead  of  the  "hour"  rate,  was  given  in 
the  American  Contractor)  : 

Rate  Per  Hour 

Trade  Open  Shop  Closed  Shop 

Carpenters     .82  i.oi 

Hod  Carriers    .61  .74 

Painters    .78  .96 

Plasterers     1.04  i.i6 

Bricklayers    1.04  1.18 

Plumbers    .95  1.03 

Average 87  i.oi 

We  see,  therefore,  that  the  average  wage  in  the  closed  shop 
towns  is  16  per  cent  higher  than  that  of  the  open  shop  towns. 

But,  in  the  language  of  a  more  or  less  popular  cartoonist, 
"it  doesn't  mean  anything." 

The  average  per  capita  building  permits  for  the  year  1921 
in  the  fifteen  cities  of  the  closed  shop  group  was  $41 ;  in  the 
open  shop  cities  the  average  was  $64.  In  other  words,  56  per 
cent  more  building  existed  in  towns  where  construction  was 
upon  an  open  shop  basis. 

Which  is  best — to  have  16  per  cent  higher  wages — "on  pa- 
per"— or  to  have  56  per  cent  more  building  in  actual  practice? 

Let  us  take  100  building  workers  in  an  average  city  in  each 
group.  In  the  closed  shop  town  they  work  100  hours  for  $1.16 
an  hour — a  total  of  $116  received  by  the  group.  During  the 
same  period  the  workers  in  the  open  shop  city,  receiving  only 
$1.00  per  hour,  can  work  156  hours,  receiving  $156.  Thus  the 
total  wage  of  the  group  of  workers  in  the  open  shop  town  is 
34  per  cent  greater  than  the  group  wage  in  the  closed  shop 
town. 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP 


267 


Open  Shop   Workers  Can  Save  More 
Comparisons  in  other  directions  likewise  throw  doubt  upon 
the  claims   of    alleged   benefit   to   workers   in   cities   where  the 
closed  shop  prevails. 

It  is  well-known  that  the  great  majority  of  deposits  in  sav- 
ings banks  are  made  by  the  workers.  For  twelve  of  the  fifteen 
cities  in  each  of  the  above  groups  we  have  been  able  to  obtain 
reliable  figures  as   to  the  amount  of   savings  banks  deposits. 


Where    Building    Is    Open    Shop 

Per  Capita 

Town                                                 Population  Deposits  Deposits 

Los   Angeles    576,073  239,808,000  416 

Detroit     993,678  218,657,814  220 

Minneapolis    380,582  80,000,000  210 

Seattle   315,652  46,198,693  I47 

Duluth     98,917                     14,000,000  142 

Milwaukee    457,i47  64,063,512  140 

Akron    208,435  28,900,654  »39 

Spokane     104,437                     i3,75o,ooo  132 

Atlanta    200,616  23,190,071  116 

Grand   Rapids    137,634                     15,053,600  109 

Nashville     118,342                    12,375,179  105 

Richmond     171,667  18,000,000  105 

Totals   3,763,180  773,997,523  206 

Where    Building   Is    Closed    Shop 

Per  Capita 

Town                                                 Population  Deposits             Deposits 

Providence    237,595  136,668,914  575 

Pittsburgh     588,343  242,976,478  413 

Scranton   137,7^3  44,682,247  324 

Cincinnati 401,247  71,000,000  173 

Chicago    2,701,705  375,647,915  139 

Louisville    234,891  30,500,000  130 

New  Orleans    387,219  44,087,861  114 

Butte    41,611  4,490,837  108 

St.  Louis 772,897  80,413,271  104 

Indianapolis   314,194  30,705,656                98 

Kansas    City,    Mo 324,410  23,745,506                73 

Dayton    iS2,559  9,582,273                 63 

Totals      6,294,454  1,094,500,958  175 

The  average  per  capita  savings  banks  deposits  in  the  cities 
in  the  open  shop  group  are  17  per  cent  greater  than  the  average 
in  the  closed  shop  group. 

The  following  notes  on  the  above  comparative  tables  must  be 

made : 

I.  For  fourteen  cities,  seven  in  each  group,  the  figures  of  savings 
banks  deposits  were  obtained  from  a  letter  of  January  10,  1922,  from 
the  National  Association  of  Mutual  Savings  Banks.  The  figures  from 
this  authority  have  been  used  wherever  given,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that 
for  six  cities,  Richmond,  Seattle,  Grand  Rapids,  Spokane,  Dayton  and 
New    Orleans,    larger    figures    from     reliable    sources    had    been    obtained. 


268  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

As   four    of    these   cities   are   in    the    "open    shop"    group   this   results   in   de- 
creasing   the   comparative    advantage    of    that   group. 

2.  For  two  cities,  Los  Angeles  and  Indianapolis,  one  in  each  group 
the  figures  for  deposits  were  obtained  from  Federal  Reserve  Bank  Bul- 
letins. As  these  bulletins  in  very  few  cases  cover  all  of  the  banks  in 
a  city  the  actual  figures  for  these  two  towns  would,  if  it  were  possible 
to  obtain  them,  probably  be  considerably  larger  than  those  here  presented. 
For  instance,  the  volume  of  savings  banks  deposits  for  Detroit  given  in 
the  October  31,  1921,  bulletin  of  the  Chicago  Federal  Reserve  Bank  was 
$137,000,000,  as  compared  with  the  $219,000,000,  total  for  all  banks  given 
by   the    National    Conference    of   Mutual    Savings    Banks. 

3.  For  eight  of  the  cities,  four  of  each  group,  our  savings  bank 
figures  were  sent  us  by  local  employers  associations,  who  had  obtained 
them    from    local    bankers. 

4.  We  are  informed  that  Dayton  savings  deposits  are  comparatively 
small  because  of  unusually  large  amounts  invested  in  building  and  loan 
associations.  The  amount  is  approximately  five  times  that  of  the  savings 
deposits;  it  would  be  unfair,  however,  to  include  this  in  the  Dayton  aver- 
age since  it  would  then  be  necessary  to  obtain  such  figures  for  all  of  the 
other  cities  and  since  a  considerable  portion  of  the  building  and  loan 
funds  arc  investments  from  other  cities  and  do  not  represent  accumu- 
lations   by    Dayton    residents. 

5.  The  above  unfairness  to  Dayton  may  be  set  off  against  the  advan- 
tage  to   the   closed   shop   group  mentioned   in   note    i. 

The  Challenge  of  Facts 

It  is  easily  conceivable,  of  course,  that  one  or  two  compari- 
sons could  be  made,  of  a  selected  nature,  which  might  indicate 
that  open  shop  conditions  were  for  the  best  interests  of  both  the 
public  and  the  worker  and  that  advocates  of  the  closed  shop 
could  claim,  with  some  degree  of  fairness,  that  the  results  were 
"accidents,"  which  other  comparisons  would  not  support. 

But  in  view  of  the  striking  evidence  in  favor  of  the  com- 
munities where  building,  a  legitimate  index,  is  on  an  open  shop 
basis  it  would  seem  that  closed  shop  advocates  should,  in  fair- 
ness to  all  parties,  either  deny  with  actual  proof  or  admit  the 
conclusions  which  intelligent  persons  must  attach  to  such  facts 
as : 

1.  Fifty-six  per  cent  greater  construction  in  the  open  shop 
towns. 

2.  Thirty  times  greater  increase  in  rents  in  the  closed  shop 
towns. 

3.  One  hundred  and  twenty-six  per  cent  more  unemployment 
in  the  closed  shop  communities. 

4.  Sixteen  per  cent  higher  paper  wages  in  closed  shop  towns, 
but  34  per  cent  more  money  wages  in  open  shop  towns. 

5.  Eighteen  per  cent  greater  average  savings  banks  deposits 
in  open  shop  towns. 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  260 

.     OPEN  SHOP  POLICY  ^ 

In  theory  the  open  shop  poUcy  is  followed  on  the  canal,  but 
in  some  departments  it  is  only  a  theory  and  the  employees  are 
completely  unionized.  The  commission  fully  believes  in  collec- 
tive dealing  between  the  operatives  and  the  executives  on  the 
canal  and  believes  that  thereby  misunderstanding  will  be  obviated 
and  cordial  relations  will  be  maintained,  but  it  is  absolutely  op- 
posed to  having  the  policy  on  the  canal  dictated  by  labor  organ- 
izations of  the  United  States  or  elsewhere,  and  it  is  equally  op- 
posed to  outside  agencies  coming  into  the  Canal  Zone  and  fo- 
menting dissatisfaction.  The  government  should  be  willing  to  pay 
wages  which,  when  all  things  are  taken  into  account,  compare 
favorably  with  the  wages  paid  by  private  agencies  for  the  same 
service,  but  it  should  pay  no  more.  Wages  paid  in  the  United 
States  should  form  the  basis  for  the  wage  scale  in  the  Canal 
Zone,  and  it  is  intolerable  that  any  group  of  employees  should 
be  able  to  force  higher  wages  or  better  conditions  by  political 
methods. 

Recommendations 

The  commission  recommends  that  the  governor  be  directed 
to  make  no  agreements  nor  to  have  any  understandings  with  the 
canal  employees  or  any  class  thereof,  for  any  period  of  time, 
but  that  the  wages  be  adjusted  from,  time  to  time  in  accordance 
with  the  law,  which  bases  the  canal  wages  on  the  pay  of  similar 
employees  in  the  government  service  in  the  United  States. 

It  is  further  recommended  that  for  positions  for  which  there 
is  no  corresponding  position  in  the  government  service  of  the 
United  States,  wage  boards  of  the  canal  fix  an  average  wage 
based  upon  the  wages  actually  paid  for  similar  services  in 
various  representative  parts  of  the  United  States,  and  that  it  be 
not  based  upon  any  artificial  rate  known  as  the  "union  rate" 
which  is  not  actually  in  effect  and  in  operation. 

It  is  further  recommended  that  the  governor  be  directed  not 
to  deal  with  labor  organizations  as  organizations,  but  that  he 
deal  with  committees  of  employees. 

It  is  further  recommended  that  the  open  shop  principle  be 
actually  put  into  effect  on  the  Isthmus  and  that  in  all  depart- 
ments a  substantial  proportion  of  non-union  men  be  employed. 

>  Report    of    Special    Panama   Canal   Commission.    1921,   p.    12-13. 


270  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

It  is  further  recommended  that  all  agreements  limiting  the 
use  of  tropical  labor  be  abrogated  and  that  hereafter  no  such 
agreements  be  entered  into  or  followed  and  that  this  include  all 
understandings,  such  as  the  edged-tool  understanding  and  the 
Ford-car  understanding,  the  canal  administration  hereafter  re- 
taining complete  freedom  of  action  as  to  its  policy  in  the  em- 
ployment of  union,  non-union,  or  tropical  labor. 

THE  GREAT  OPEN   SHOP  "CONSPIRACY"^ 

During  the  past  few  months  two  representative  organiza- 
tions of  the  important  religious  denominations  of  the  country 
have  issued  statements  criticizing  the  present  popular  and  wide- 
spread movement  in  behalf  of  the  open  shop. 

One  of  these  statements,  given  out  by  the  National  Catholic 
Welfare  Council,  was  published  in  detail  with  comment  in  In- 
dustry for  November  15th.  The  other  statement,  claiming  to 
represent  the  views  of  certain  protestant  churches,  was  recently 
made  public  by  the  Federal  Council  of  Churches. 

The  statements  are  unanimous  in  declaring  that  the  present 
open  shop  movement  is  not  only  a  snare  and  a  delusion,  but  had 
been  conceived  in  sin  and  perpetuated  for  the  sole  purpose  of 
destroying  trade  unionism  and  casting  back  into  some  vague  con- 
dition of  industrial  slavery  the  workmen  of  America. 

Clearly  to  appreciate  the  astounding  nature  of  this  charge 
against  the  integrity  and  humanity  of  American  business  men 
in  general  it  is  necessary  to  understand  that  the  religious  or- 
ganizations making  the  charge  are  in  a  position,  because  of  their 
representative  character,  to  impress  the  great  army  of  Catholic 
and  Protestant  clergymen  as  well  as  many  lay  members. 

The  Federal  Council  of  Churches,  for  instance,  is  supposed 
to  investigate,  analyze  and  report  on  all  so-called  social  service 
conditions  affecting  the  material  and  spiritual  welfare  of  man- 
kind. It  is  the  voice,  so  to  speak,  of  the  church  in  such  mat- 
ters. There  is  no  question  that  very  many  clergymen  laboring 
in  the  front  line  of  trenches  against  the  cohorts  of  evil  look  to 
the  Federal  Council  for  inspiration  and  information.  This  is 
true  because  their  leaders  tell  them  that  the  church  has  pro- 
vided through  the  Federal  Council  a  means  by  which  they  can 

*  Henry  H.  Lewis.  Industry.   3:2-5.  January   i,    192 1. 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  271 

survey  the  conditions  and  needs  of  social  service,  including  the 
vexed  problems  of  industrial  relations.  The  National  Catholic 
Welfare  Council  functions  in  like  manner  for  the  Catholic 
clergy. 

There  are  some  who  profess  to  believe  that  the  influence  and 
authoritative  voice  of  the  National  Catholic  Welfare  Council 
and  the  Federal  Council  of  Churches  are  not  as  potent  as  the 
councils  themselves  insist  on  claiming.  It  has  been  said  that  the 
councils  really  represent  the  policy  and  beliefs  of  small  groups 
instead  of  the  great  body  of  churchmen.  That  is  as  may  be,  but 
the  fact  remains  that  both  councils  have  been  authorized  by 
their  respective  churches,  and  function  under  certain  dispensa- 
tions. Even  if  their  influence  and  authority  were  merely 
negligible,  the  palpable  unfairness  of  their  proclaimed  attitude 
toward  the  problems  under  consideration  would  still  be  worthy 
of  attention.     The  situation  is  about  as   follows : 

Following  the  publication  in  Industry  of  various  articles  on 
"The  Industrial  Fallacies  of  Certain  Rehgious  and  Secular  Or- 
ganizations," including  a  detailed  description  of  the  activities 
of  the  Federal  Council  of  Churches,  and  "The  Facts  in  the 
Case  of  the  Interchurch  World  Movement,"  Industry  secured 
from  Rev.  F.  Ernest  Johnson  of  the  Federal  Council  of 
Churches,  a  statement  in  approval  of  the  real  open  shop.  Rev. 
Johnson  declared  in  this  statement: 

The  true  open  shop  not  only  represents  the  sounder  industrial  policy, 
but  is  ethically  right.  Coercion  in,  the  matter  of  union  membership  is 
undemocratic  and  intolerable,  whether  it  comes  from  one  side  or  the 
other. 

This  declaration  was  published  in  Industry  for  October  1st 
and  was  widely  copied.  Several  weeks  later  the  National 
Catholic  Welfare  Council  issued  the  following  public  statement 
to  the  press:    [see  p.  80-1.  of  this  volume] 

Under  date  of  December  27,  1920,  the  Federal  Council  of 
Churches,  through  its  official  publicity  department  in  New  York, 
gave  out  the  following  statement,  which  we  are  reprinting  in 
its  entirety:   [see  p.  81-2.  of  this  volume] 

It  is  well  to  read  carefully  the  opinions  of  the  two  councils 
and  particularly  to  note  that  in  neither  instance  is  any  effort 
made  to  give  specific  facts,  or  specific  names,  or  specific  locali- 
ties. The  statements  are  blanket  charges  against  the  Ameri- 
can employer  of  labor.  It  cannot  be  controverted  that  the 
impression  given,  whether  designedly  or  not,  is  that  the  present 


272  se:lected  articles 

open  shop  movement  is  being  conducted  by  American  employers 
for  the  sole  purpose  of  destroying  the  organized  labor  move- 
ment. 

The  National  Catholic  Welfare  Council  openly  charges  that 
the  so-called  "drive"  threatens  the  "whole  structure  of  indus- 
trial peace  and  order,"  and  further  that  "there  is  great  danger 
that  the  whole  nation  wrill  be  harmed  by  this  campaign  of  a  few 
groups   of    strong   employers." 

The  Federal  Council  of  Churches,  not  to  be  outdone  in  this 
riot  of  denunciation,  declares:  "We  feel  impelled  to  call  public 
attention  to  the  fact  that  a  very  widespread  impression  exists 
that  the  present  'open  shop'  campaign  is  inspired  in  many  quar- 
ters by  this  antagonism  to  labor,"  also  that  many  disinterested 
persons  are  convinced  that  an  attempt  is  being  made  to  destroy 
the  organized  labor  movement." 

Now  what  are  the  facts  in  the  case?  What  truth  is  in  the 
charge  of  widespread  conspiracy  made  against  the  employers  of 
the  country?  On  what  grounds  do  the  two  councils  base  their 
serious  arraignment  of  the  business  interests? 

We  have  the  statements  just  quoted,  statements  claiming  to 
represent  the  judgment  and  opinion  of  certain  church  authori- 
ties supposed  to  speak  for  several  milHon  clergymen.  The 
statements  when  carefully  analyzed  give  no  indication  of  prior 
investigation,  no  proof  even  of  any  consideration  of  industrial 
conditions,  no  evidence  of  that  fairness  of  spirit  and  priestly 
regard  for  facts  based  on  demonstrated  proofs  which  one  nat- 
urally would  expect   from  the  men  of  the  cloth. 

In  publicly  attacking  the  present  open  shop  movement,  and 
in  publicly  charging  that  the  open  shop  movement  is  insincere 
and  a  dishonest  attempt  to  fool  the  people,  did  those  responsible 
for  the  statements  make  any  attempt  to  get  at  the  truth?  Did 
they  fail  to  see,  for  instance,  the  countrywide  declarations  in  be- 
half of  the  open  shop  made  by  innumerable  associations  which 
include  in  their  membership  merchants  and  professional  men 
as  well  as  manufacturers?  Is  it  possible  the  two  councils  have 
forgotten  the  referendum  held  last  July  by  the  United  States 
Chamber  of  Commerce,  in  which  1,665  of  1,669  of  its  members 
voted  in  favor  of  the  following  principle : 

The  right  of  open  shcp  operation,  that  is  the  right  of  employer  and 
employee  to  enter  into  and  determine  the  conditions  of  employment  rela- 
tion with  each  other,  is  an  essential  part  of  the  individual  right  of  con- 
tract  possessed   by  each   of   the   parties. 


THE   CLOSED   SHOP  212, 

The  United  States  Ghamber  of  Commerce,  as  its  name  im- 
plies, is  composed  of  local  chambers  in  all  parts  of  the  country. 
Its  membership,  therefore,  includes  merchants,  bankers,  law- 
yers, doctors,  educators  and  business  men  of  every  degree.  In 
fact,  a  policy  adopted  by  the  United  States  Chamber  of  Com- 
merce really  represents  the  sense  of  a  community. 

And  again,  did  the  two  councils  fail  to  see  that  the  National 
Grange,  having  a  membership  of  practically  one  million  con- 
structive farmers,  adopted  at  its  recent  annual  convention  in 
Jjoston  a  ringing  declaration  entitled  "The  Right  to  Work," 
reading  as  follows : 

The  National  Grange  does  hereby  express  its  disapproval  of  any  sys- 
tem which  denies  to  any  individual  the  right  to  work  in  any  place  where 
his  industry  is  needed  at  any  time  and  at  any  wage  which  is  satisfactory 
to  him,  or  to  quit  his  employment  whenever  and  for  whatever  reason  may 
be  to  him  controlling,  subject  only  to  such  contract  obligation  as  he  may 
willingly  enter  into  and  as  may  be  enforceable  in  an  American  Court  of 
Justice. 

And  again,  have  the  two  councils  forgotten  the  principle  ap- 
proved by  the  American  Bankers'  Association  at  its  conven- 
tion in  Washington  last  October?  This  representative  business 
association  has  a  membership  exceeding  twenty-three  thousand 
located  in  every  city  and  hamlet  in  the  country.  Its  declaration 
reads : 

Labor  by  fomenting  strikes,  encouraging  disagreement  with  employers, 
is,  in  fact,  striking  at  the  heart  of  its  own  future  progress  and  impairing 
the  prosperity  of  the  country.  Capital  should  recognize  the  results  of 
the  toilers  and  improve  working  conditions  and  wages  in  ratio  to  the  pro- 
duction and  investment.  Every  man  should  be  free  to  work  out  his  own 
salvation  and  not  be  bound  by  the  shackles  of  organization,  to  his  detri- 
ment. 

In  view  of  the  foregoing,  why  did  the  National  Catholic  Wel- 
fare Council  include  in  its  amazing  charges  the  statement : 
"There  is  great  danger  that  the  whole  nation  will  be  harmed  by 
this  campaign  of  a  few  groups  of  strong  employers."  It  is  in- 
conceivable that  any  council,  ecclesiastical  or  otherwise,  could 
believe  that  the  present  movement  for  the  open  shop  is  a  "cam- 
paign of  a  few  groups  of  strong  employers." 

What  about  the  many  public  advertisements  printed  through- 
out the  country  by  local  organizations  of  employers,  in  which 
are  clearly  presented  the  open  shop  policy  of  the  organizations 
in  question?  Did  the  councils  fail  to  see,  for  instance,  the  recent 
declaration  of  the  Cleveland  Chamber  of  Commerce,  as  printed 


274  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

ill   the   form   of   full-page  advertisements  in  the   leading  papers 
of  that  city?     The  declaration  read  in  part  as  follows: 

The  Cleveland  Chamber  of  Commerce  believes  in  open  shop — the  real 
open  shop — in  which  every  worker's  chance  is  as  good  as  any  other 
worker's  chance,  the  open  shop  from  which  no  worker  is  shut  out  be- 
cause he  holds  a  union  card,  and  from  which  no  worker  is  shut  out  be- 
cause he  has  no  union  card. 

The  Cleveland  Chamber  of  Commerce  has  a  membership  of 
more  than  three  thousand.  It  is  a  representative  body  of  Ameri- 
can business  men,  including  manufacturers,  merchants,  bankers, 
etc.,  public-spirited  citizens  having  a  deep  appreciation  of  civic 
welfare  and  national  prosperity.  Are  we  to  believe  that  the 
National  Catholic  Welfare  Council  includes  these  men  in  the 
so-called  "drive"  against  "industrial  peace  and  order?" 

Did  the  authors  of  the  statements  issued  by  the  two  councils 
communicate  with  the  Milwaukee  Employers  Council?  Did  they 
know  that  this  particular  group  of  representative  employers  is 
on  public  record  as  approving  the  following  policy: 

The  open  shop — a  system  prevailing  in  shops,  factories,  stores,  etc., 
under  which  men  and  women  are  employed  on  a  basis  of  ability  and 
honesty,  without  regard  to  their  affiliations — religious,  political,  union  or 
otherwise — and    under   which    no   discrimination   is    practiced. 

And  Salt  Lake  City,  where  the  Utah  Associated  Industries 
declares  as  its  definite  policy: 

"There  shall  be  no  discrimination  against  any  workman  on  account  of 
his  affiliation  or  non-affiliation  with  any  labor  organization,"  and  adds 
further,  "Any  act  of  coercion,  intimidation  or  force  from  any  source 
whatsoever  applied  against  any  employer  or  employee  engaged  in  lawful 
pursuits    is    fundamentally    unjust,    vicious    and    un-American." 

And  Utica,  N.  Y.,  in  which  typical  industrial  city  the  Asso- 
ciated Employers  announces  the  intention  to  "insure  everyone 
his  right  to  earn  a  living  regardless  of  his  membership  or  non- 
membership  in  any  union  or  organization,  and  that  his  indivdual 
earning  power  or  his  opportunity  for  advancement  shall  be 
limited  or  restricted  only  by  his  ability  and  efforts." 

And  Toledo,  Ohio,  where  the  Manufacturers  and  Merchants' 
Association  includes  in  its  Declaration  of  Principles,  "We  stand 
for  the  open  shop,  which  means  absolute  fairness  to  all  classes 
of  workers,  whether  union  or  non-union." 

And  Paterson,  N.  J.,  in  which  city  the  Associated  Industries 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  275 

published  in  the  press  a  scries  of  statements  of  which  the  fol' 

lowing  is  typical: 

We  pledge  ourselves  to  hire  any  worthy  worker  we  can,  absolutely 
without  discrimination,  who  belongs  to  a  trade  union.  Wc  also  pledge 
ourselves  to  hire  any  worthy  worker  we  can,  absolutely  without  discrimina- 
tion,  who   is   an  independent  workman. 

The  open  shop  plan  of  employment  has  been  established  in 
hundreds  of  American  cities.  Industry  has  on  file  the  declara- 
tions of  many  employers'  associations  similar  in  principle  to 
those  just  quoted.  It  is  therefore  in  a  position  to  refute  ab- 
solutely the  charges  made  by  the  Federal  Council  of  Churches 
and   the    National   Catholic   Welfare   Council. 

Industry  not  only  does  not  believe  that  the  present  movement 
for  the  open  shop  is  a  "drive"  against  "industrial  peace  and 
order,"  or  that  an  "attempt  is  being  made  to  destroy  the  or- 
ganized labor  movement,"  but  has  indisputable  proof  to  the 
contrary.  And  so  convincing,  and  easily  obtainable  is  that 
proof  that  the  question  naturally  arises:  Why  did  the  two 
councils  promulgate  such  serious  and  unsupported  accusations? 

Must  not  the  answer  be  found  in  the  many  instances  of  fail- 
ure on  the  part  of  ecclesiastical  and  other  bodies  actually  to  in- 
vestigate conditions  before  making  their  definite  announce- 
ments? Have  we  not  had  innumerable  cases  of  hasty  and  ill- 
advised  opinions  made  public  without  adequate  information  and 
analysis?  Has  not  the  church  itself  been  prone  to  declare  its 
approval  of  certain  suggested  reforms,  especially  in  connection 
with  industrial  relations,  although  the  so-called  reforms  had 
no  practical  and  but  little  sentimental  value? 

Since  Industry  began  to  call  attention  to  certain  industrial 
fallacies  in  the  church  it  has  contended  that  much  of  the  harm- 
ful and  erroneous  material  in  the  nature  of  charges  and  direct 
accusations  has  been  based  on  ignorance  of  practical  conditions. 
From  time  to  time  this  publication  has  urged  personal  investi- 
gations by  individual  clergymen,  believing  that  the  only  antidote 
to  the  poison  of  misinformation  issued  by  certain  leaders  would 
be  the  facts  ascertained  by  the  great  body  of  earnest,  christian 
gentlemen  forming  the  clergy  of  the  country. 

Fair  play  is  a  fundamental  principle  of  the  American 
people.  Fair  play  means  equal  justice  to  all.  It  is  expected  of 
the  lowliest   citizen — and   from  the  church. 


276  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

THE   PUBLIC  MUST  AGAIN  PAY^ 

To  THE  Public: 

The  public  interest  has  again,  as  in  the  past,  been  disregard- 
ed and  sacrificed  in  the  building  trades'  settlement. 

Expediency  has  prevailed  against  right  principle. 

The  renewed  closed  shop  agreement  offers  no  relief  to  the 
rent  payer  and  home  owner  against  that  recognized  cause  of 
exorbitant  building  cost — the  closed  shop  restriction  against 
freedom  of  employment. 

The  closed  shop  agreement  is  unfair  to  the  rent  payer  and 
home  owner  because  by  monopolistic  agreement  it  arbitrarily 
raises  rents  through  high  building  costs  and  increases  the  cost 
of  building  a  home. 

In  the  Building  Trades  Employers'  Association  there  are 
a  considerable  number  of  men  who  believe  in  the  open  shop  and 
are  willing  to  fight  for  it,  if  a  fight  is  necessary;  a  much 
smaller  number  of  men  who  sincerely  beheve  in  the  closed 
union  shop;  a  few  who  believe  in  the  open  shop  but  are  un- 
willing to  face  the  issue  lest  lawlessness,  violence,  destruction 
of  property  and  murder  result;  and  a  much  larger  number  who 
believing  the  open  shop  to  be  right,  find  the  line  of  least  re- 
sistance both  easy  and  profitable. 

That  group  preferring  the  closed  shop  lest  a  reign  of  terror 
and  their  own  bankruptcy  would  result  from  a  declaration  for 
the  open  shop,  thereby  infer  that  labor  would  countenance  an 
organized  effort  to  defeat  open  shop  through  violence,  lawless- 
ness, destruction  of  property  and  murder. 

If  their  interference  is  true  that  a  right  principle— the  open 
shop — would  cause  such  organized  crime,  then  the  quicker  the 
people  know  it  the  better.  The  people  of  this  city  would  make 
short  work  of  organized  crime  and  organized  criminals. 

That  group  who  believe  the  open  shop  to  be  right  in  prin- 
ciple, but  who  find  the  line  of  least  resistance  easy  and  profit- 
able, ignore  the  public  interest  and  content  themselves  with 
passing  on  the  high  building  costs  for  the  public  to  pay. 

An    enlightened    and    determined    public    opinion    will    even- 

1  An  advertisement  appearing  in  the  Cleveland  newspapers  on  April 
27  10'^  signed  by  the  Cleveland  Chamber  of  Commerce.  By  order  of 
the  Board  of  Directors,  Newton  D.  Baker,  President;  Munson  Havens, 
Secretary. 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  277 

tually  settle  the  building  trade  situation  in  Cleveland  upon  a 
right  principle — the  principle  of  the  open  shop :  the  shop  in 
which  every  worker's  chance  is  as  good  as  every  other  worker's 
chance  and  from  which  no  worker  is  shut  out  because  he  holds 
a  union  card  and  from  which  no  worker  is  shut  out  because 
he  has  no  union  card. 


BRIEF  EXCERPTS 

There  is  no  objection  to  employees  of  the  government 
forming  or  belonging  to  unions ;  but  the  government  can 
neither  discriminate  for  nor  discriminate  against  non-union  men 
who  are  in  its  employment,  or  who  seek  to  be  employed  under 
it, — Theodore  Roosevelt.  Message  to  Congress.  December  6, 
1904.  />.   4. 

That  the  closed  shop  in  the  building  trades  in  Cleveland 
largely  is  responsible  for  abnormally  high  prices  and  consequent 
curtailment  of  new  enterprise  is  the  principal  conclusion  reached 
after  several  months  study  of  the  subject  by  the  Building 
Costs  Investigation  Committee  of  the  [Cleveland]  Chamber  of 
Commerce. — Iro^n  Trade  Reviezv  67:1152.  October  21,  1920. 

The  commission  adjudges  and  awards:  That  no  person  shall 
be  refused  employment,  or  in  any  way  discriminated  against, 
on  account  of  membership  or  non-membership  in  any  labor  or- 
ganization; and  that  there  shall  be  no  discrimination  against, 
or  interference  with,  any  employee  who  is  not  a  member  of  any 
labor  organization  by  members  of  such  organization. — Report 
on  the  anthracite  coal  strike  of  1902.  p.  83. 

The  American  open  shop  is  absolutely  "open"  to  both  union 
and  independent  workers.  This  is  conclusively  shown  by  re- 
ports from  all  sections  of  the  country  gathered  by  the 
Philadelphia  Fublic  Ledger.  Statements  that  the  open  shop 
means  the  non-union  shop  only  are  demonstrated  by  this  pres- 
entation of  fact  to  be  absolutely  false. — Open  Shop  Depart- 
fnenf,  National  Association  of  Manufacturers. 

Labor's  fight  for  the  closed  shop,  for  example,  will  result 
in  friction  so  dangerous  as  to  call  for  all  the  intelligence  and 


278  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

fairmindedness  available.  The  American  people  are  by  no 
means  prepared  to  admit  the  closed  shop  for  universal  applica- 
tion. They  now  oppose  it  because  they  believe  it  to  involve  a 
vicious  discrimination  against  milUons  of  wage-earners  who 
want  some  freedom  of  their  own.  Hardly  one  worker  in  a  dozen 
belongs  to  a  labor  organization  in  this  country. — John  Graham 
Brooks.   Labor's  challenge  to  the  sociail  order,  p.  134. 

The  closed  shop  in  its  present  form  is  the  concrete  expres- 
sion of  the  doctrine  of  force.  It  is  a  shop  closed  to  non-mem- 
bers of  the  union.  It  represents  a  monopoly  of  employment  in 
favor  of  the  union  in  the  particular  shop,  as  well  as  a  vantage 
ground  from  which  attacks  may  be  launched  upon  other  shops. 
From  the  refusal  of  union  men  to  work  with  non-union  men  in 
individual  cases,  there  has  developed  the  idea  of  using  the 
closed  shop  as  a  means  of  securing  nation-wide  control  of  in- 
dustry, and  the  great  national  labor  organizations  have  long 
been  cooperating  to  this  end. — Walter  Drew.  The  open  or  closed 
shop.  p.  8. 

The  most  powerful  labor  organization  in  America,  made  up 
of  the  railroad  brotherhoods,  has  been  built  up  on  a  policy 
directly  opposed  to  the  "closed  shop"  poHcy  of  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor.  Not  one  of  those  railroad  organizations 
has  ever  denied  the  right  of  any  man  to  enter  the  service  of 
railroads  solely  on  the  ground  that  he  did  not  belong  to  the 
brotherhood;  on  the  contrary  brotherhood  men  frequently 
have  worked,  side  by  side,  with  men  not  in  the  brotherhood, 
and  it  is  the  "open  shop"  practice,  this  absence  of  intolerance 
and  coercion  in  the  brotherhoods  that  has  made  them  the 
strongest  and  most  influential  labor  organization  in  America. — 
Pacific  Coast  Mechanic.    January,  1918. 

The  fundamental  indictment  against  the  closed  shop  is  that 
it  is  absolutely  un-American.  The  closed  shop  encroaches  upon 
an  inalienable  right  of  the  American  citizen.  In  other  words, 
the  closed  shop  is  the  attempt  of  organized  labor  to  obtain  by 
force  what  it  cannot  obtain  by  persuasion. 

The  second  indictment  against  the  closed  shop  is  that  even 
though  it  were  lawful,  it  is  not  in  the  interest  of  the  public. 
I    submit    that    it    is    not    in    the    public    interest    to    permit    an 


THE   CLOSED   SHOP  279 

employer  to  be  placed  in  a  position  where  he  must  sa}^  "no"  to  the 
apphcation  of  a  good  workman  for  employment,  or  "yes"  to 
the  application  of  a  poor  one.  The  principle  underlying  these 
statements  is  so  fundamental  that  they  are  beyond  argument. — 
New  Sky  Line  2:8.    Febmary  21,  1921. 

The  closed  shop  undermines  a  workman's  conscience.  He 
walks  into  the  shop  and  goes  to  work  without  consulting  the 
.  man  who  pays  the  wage,  and  at  a  wage  stipulated  under  a  con- 
tract that  he  is  not  a  party  to.  All  he  is  required  to  do  is  to  put 
in  the  required  number  of  hours  and  draw  his  pay.  If  he  fails 
to  earn  it,  and  his  conscience  tells  him  so,  he  takes  it  anyway. 
If  he  works  five  minutes  overtime  he  is  called  down  by  the 
union.  If  he  turns  out  too  much  work  he  gets  in  bad  with  the 
union,  or  the  business  agent.  He  must  follow  the  dictates  of 
the  business  agent  and  not  of  his  conscience  in  dealing  with 
his  employer. — New  Sky  Line  1 14.     February  12,  1921. 

There  are  cases,  of  course,  in  which  industry  in  order  to 
efficiently  serve  society  and  protect  itself  against  unjust  agres- 
sion must  refuse  to  have  any  dealings  with  certain  unions.  Such 
cases  are,  however,  the  exception  rather  than  the  rule.  Except 
where  employers  find  it  necessary  to  discriminate  against  unions 
guilty  of  such  acts,  the  vast  majority  of  American  employers  are 
willing  to  employ  capable  workers  without  regard  to  the  mere 
fact  of  membership  or  non-membership  in  any  lawful  organ- 
ization operating  in  a  lawful  manner.  Honest  production  is 
what  is  desired ;  they  do  not  care  whether  union  or  non-union 
men  do  the  work.  In  Philadelphia  the  business  agent  of  the 
Patternmakers'  Association  testified  in  1914  that  more  than  50 
per  cent  of  their  members  were  employed  in  open  shops. — 
/.  Philip  Bird.  Philadelphia  Public  Ledger.  July  3,  1921. 

Here,  then,  is  the  final  fruit  and  flower  of  the  closed  shop. 
Here  is  harmony  and  peaceful  collective  bargaining  between  the 
parties,  with  their  feet  under  the  same  table.  The  union  gets 
a  monopoly  of  labor  and  all  its  demands  and  restrictions  acced- 
ed to.  The  employer  gets  a  monopoly  of  the  market,  and  the 
public  pays  the  final  bill.  These  combinations  are  not  peculiar 
to  New  York.  They  exist  in  many  large  cities  where  closed 
shop   control   of   the  building  industry  has   become   established. 


28o  SELECTED   ARTICLES 

They  exist,  also,  in  other  industries  where  conditions  are  favor- 
able to  their  development.  The  point  is  that  they  are  the  logical 
outgrowth  of  the  spirit  and  purpose  of  the  closed  shop,  and  if 
the  employers  of  this  country  are  ever  forced  to  accept  the 
closed  shop  through  the  acquiescence  or  sympathy  of  the  public, 
the  public  will  have  no  one  but  itself  to  blame  if  it  finds  that 
the  two  parties  hav^  stopped  fighting  and  joined  forces  against 
it.  Industrial  peace  and  harmony  thus  secured  will  be  a  more 
serious  matter  for  the  public  than  industrial  warfare. — Waller 
Drew.     The  open  or  closed  shop.    p.  17. 

The  policy  of  an  employers'  association  is  rightful  whenever 
it  clearly  appears  that  in  the  execution  of  that  policy  a  single 
employer  or  a  great  association  of  employers  is  promoting  the 
development  of  private  and  public  liberty.  If,  on  the  contrary, 
a  policy  adopted  by  employers  tends  the  other  way — toward  the 
restriction  of  either  private  or  public  liberty — the  chances  are 
that  the  policy  is  wrong  or  dangerous  to  the  public  weal,  not 
right  or  beneficial.  To  illustrate  what  I  mean  by  this  test  I 
shall  use  the  following  fist  of  the  objects  of  an  employers'  as- 
sociation in  Boston  which  was  formed  within  the  last  six 
months.  The  association  states  its  objects  as  follows:  (i)  No 
closed  shop.  .  . 

"No  closed  shop."  That  means  resistance  to  the  most  effec- 
tive policy  of  the  labor  unions  to  procure  the  establishment  of  a 
complete  monopoly;  and  this  resistance  is  a  measure  in  defence 
of  competition.  Now,  the  restriction  of  competition  is  inimical 
to  personal  and  public  freedom,  to  progress,  and  to  the  common 
well-being.  .  .  I  find  every  one  of  these  eight  principles  to  be  in 
defence  of  private  and  public  Yiherty.— Charles  W.  Eliot.  Har- 
per's Monthly   110:529.  March,  1905. 

Recommendations : 

That   organized   labor : 

(a)  Democratize    and    control    the    unions,    especially   in 

regard    to    the    calling,    conduct    and    settlement    of 
strikes. 

(b)  Reorganize  unions  with  a  view  of  sharing  in 
responsibility  for  production  and  in  control  of 
production    processes ;    to    this    end : 


THE   CLOSED    SHOP  281 

1.  Repudiating  restriction  of  production  as  a  doc- 
trine. 

2.  Formulating  contracts  which  can  be  lived  up  to. 

3.  Finding  a   substitute    for  the  closed   shop  wher- 
ever it  is  a  union  practice. 

(c)  Scrupulously    avoid   all   advocates   of   violence. 

(d)  Accept  all  possible  proffers  of  publicity  and 
conciliation. 

(e)  Promote  Americanization  in  all  possible  ways  and 
insist  upon  an  American  standard  of  living  for  all 
workingmen. 

(f)  Prepare    more    adequate    technical    information    for 

the  public  in  regard  to  all  conditions  bearing  upon 
the  calling  and  the  conduct  of   a  strike. 

(g)  Seek  alliance  and  council  from  the  salaried  class 
known   as   brain   workers. — Commission   of  Inquiry. 

Interchurch    World   Movement.    Report    on    the    steel   strike    of 
1919-  P-  249- 

The  closed  union  shop  represents,  in  my  judgment,  an  un- 
American  and  an  un-democratic  principle.  According  to  its 
theory,  no  man  can  pursue  his  occupation  as  a  worker  without 
the  consent  of  those  already  in  that  craft.  In  other  words, 
each  trade  becomes  a  monopoly  in  the  hands  of  those  who  are 
now  in  it,  admission  to  its  ranks  is  dependent  upon  their  con- 
sent and  the  wide  and  general  freedom,  which  we  have  hither- 
to thought  of  as  American  liberty,  is,  so  far  as  industrial  oc- 
cupation is  concerned,  divided  up  into  extra-legal  groups  who 
have  an  exclusive  monopoly  of  their  respective  trades,  the  right 
to  determine  who  shall  be  admitted  to  them,  and  when  and  how 
far  he   shall  be  permitted  to   work. 

Furthermore,  evils  which  might  easily  be  foreseen  seem  in- 
evitably to  result  from  the  practical  application  of  this  theory. 
It  imposes  limitations  upon  output  and  therefore  requires  men 
to  do  less  than  their  best,  which  is  wrong  to  society  and  hurt- 
ful to  the  individual.  It  presents  its  monopoly  as  sometimes 
an  antagonist  and  sometimes  a  partner  of  the  corresponding 
monopoly  of  employers  and  between  them  they  take  out  of  the 
consumer  whatever  he  can  be  made  to  pay,  the  only  limitation 
being  that  while  they  are  united  against  the  consumer  and 
against    any    outsider    seeking    to    break    into    their    respective 


282  SELECTED    ARTICLES 

monopolies,  they  will  carry  on  by  strike  and  lockouts  a  contest 
between  themselves,  all  of  which  costs  the  consumer  the  im- 
mense sum  which  is  annually  wasted  in  America  .by  idleness. — 
Newton  D.  Baker.  Correspondence  between  the  Painters'  Union 
and  Mr.  Baker,    p.  6-7. 


It*. 


'Jo 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 
LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 

Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


!S0rt'57WW 


RbC'D  LP 


OCT  151951 


i^*>^ 


RECons 


JAN  17  1958 


414M 


59P\Ar 


^^'QtP 


JWUIM 


LD  21A-50m-8/57 
(C8481sl0)476B 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


^B  ;9264 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


■¥ 


ti 


